Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Wales Tourist Board

Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of the Wales tourist board; and what was discussed.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): I frequently meet the chairman of the Wales tourist board to discuss many matters of mutual interest.

Mr. Adley: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and declare an interest in the industry. Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who have an interest in these matters have long felt that things in tourism are done rather better in Wales than in England? Will he accept congratulations on that? In view of the current review of tourism has my right hon. Friend discussed with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment—and if he has not, I hope that he will—the structure of tourism in Wales?

Mr. Roy Hughes: Declare an interest.

Mr. Adley: I have already declared an interest. Will my right hon. Friend tell me whether the Wales tourist board, or other agencies, will still be able to distribute grant as required to areas of Wales where development is still needed?

Mr. Walker: Tourism is of incredible importance to Wales in bringing in people who will look at the commercial and industrial prospects of Wales and, of course, in providing jobs and opportunities in rural and coastal areas. That is why the board's net budget for 1988–89 will be 90 per cent. more than it was in 1983–84. Section 4 assistance to the industry has tripled from £1 million to nearly £3·3 million during the same period and has been of great advantage to the economy of Wales.

Mr. Anderson: If we are to fill up the beds in our very welcome Holiday Inn in Swansea, we need, as the Secretary of State will be aware, to clean up Swansea bay. Is he satisfied that we shall not be able to comply with the EC bathing waters directive until 1995 at the earliest? Does he recognise the link between the directive and clean beaches in Wales as a whole?

Mr. Walker: Yes, of course I do. I am glad to say that immense capital investment is going into that, which did not happen under the last Labour Government.

Mr. Harris: Given the common problems faced by the tourist industry in Wales and the more remote parts of England such as Cornwall, will my right hon. Friend tell me why on earth section 4 grants under the Development of Tourism Act 1969 are being suspended in England whereas, as he says, they are being tripled in Wales? What is the fairness of that?

Mr. Walker: In fairness, they have not been tripled in Wales this year, but over the past few years. Section 4 grants have been continuing in England. The report that my right hon. Friend has had will be discussed with those concerned and conclusions must be reached on the English tourist industry on the basis of information on inward investments coming into the English tourist industry. I have to make decisions on the Welsh tourist industry.

Welsh Coalfield

Mr. Denzil Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has any plans to meet in the near future the chairman of British Coal to discuss the state of the Welsh coalfield.

Mr. Peter Walker: I am in touch regularly with the chairman and deputy chairman to discuss issues of mutual interest.

Mr. Davies: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman, will he tell him of the deep anger and resentment in west Wales that British Coal is walking away from the anthracite coalfield, with its enormous reserves of high quality and saleable coal? Will he urge the chairman to carry out a study of the economics of mining anthracite from small drift mines employing up to 75 people because many believe that mined in that way, anthracite could be extremely saleable and competitive in relation both to opencast operations and imports of Chinese coal?

Mr. Walker: I shall convey the views expressed to the chairman of British Coal and I shall also examine, within the Welsh Office, the suggestion about smaller units employing fewer than 75 people and what economic impact that would have. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is constructive.

Mr. Livsey: Will the Secretary of State note that British Coal Opencast has decided again to try for permission to work the Bryn Henllys site in my constituency, after an inspector turned down that application about a year ago? Is he aware that there is deep anger in the community that British Coal will attempt that again? Is there not far too much opencast coal in the south Wales coalfield, which is despoiling the environment?

Mr. Walker: In making decisions about opencast coal applications, one must consider carefully both the short-term and long-term environmental implications. I hasten to add that when I was responsible, as Secretary of State for the Environment, for such developments in England, I found that, with certain conditions one could improve the environment over a period of years. However, such applications must be looked at carefully bearing in mind the whole environmental question.

Mr. Raffan: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the miners at Point of Air in my constituency for their dramatically increased productivity since the miners' strike? Will he confirm that over £130


million has been invested in the coal industry in Wales since 1985, and that our record compares favourably with that of the Labour party which, during its last two terms in office, closed a total of 56 pits in the Principality?

Mr. Walker: I must correct my hon. Friend. In their last two terms, the Labour Government closed 62 pits. However, the closure of pits brings no joy to any party. Problems such as geology often affect such decisions. Although I deeply regret the closures of pits for mainly economic reasons as that creates problems, the increase in productivity has been helpful in that respect.

Mr. Ray Powell: Does the Secretary of State recall that when he was a Minister in the Department of Energy, he was responsible for several colliery closures in Wales? Does he realise that the mining fraternity has been reduced from 22,000 in 1979, to fewer than 8,000 now and that in my constituency seven collieries have been closed and 5,000 miners made redundant? Will he accept that his valleys initiative is not making any dent in unemployment in the valleys?

Mr. Walker: I know that the hon. Gentleman will be delighted that since the valleys initiative was announced, unemployment in the valleys has fallen faster than it has in the rest of Wales. In response to his anxiety, perhaps he will send me quotations of what he said during the period of the last Labour Government when 30,980 jobs were lost in the mining industry in Wales.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does the Secretary of State accept that the south Wales coalfield is apprehensive, especially in the light of the 1,500 jobs at the Cynheidre and Marine collieries and the 500 jobs elsewhere that are under review? Why has the Carway Fawr project been halted, after £34 million worth of investment? If the reason is geological, that is incompetence of the highest order, but if it is because of the prospect of privatisation, it is a scandal.
Finally, since the coalfield and the valleys are synonymous, may I warn the Secretary of State about making statements tomorrow to his cronies in the Confederation of British Industry about the valleys initiative? He should come to this House to make a statement. What has he to hide? Is he engaged in a desperate election ruse?

Mr. Walker: I can quite understand the hon. Gentleman's neurosis. I shall make sure that I send him a copy of my speech tomorrow, which will give detail after detail of what is actually taking place in the valleys. When the hon. Gentleman has seen all the details, he should compare them with what went on in the valleys when he was a Minister. I should be delighted to see the comparison.

Tourism (Grants)

Mr. Gregory: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of applicants for section 4 grants under the Development of Tourism Act 1969, the number approved and the value awarded, for each year since 1980; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall circulate the information in the Official Report and I shall also place a copy in the Library.

Mr. Gregory: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that hoteliers and those who so successfully manage tourist attractions in Wales will not suffer the problems that beset their colleagues in England because of the Secretary of State for Employment who has suspended section 4 assistance? Will he confirm that section 4 is of great value to the Principality?

Mr. Roberts: I can certainly confirm that there has been a considerable increase in the number of applications for section 4 assistance from 1980–81, when there were 160 applications, to the current year's forecast of 224 applications. Of course, the number of applications approved has increased over the years, as has the assistance offered. I can also confirm that the section 4 scheme is not being suspended in Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment made his statement on 31 January suspending, as I understand it, further applications for section 4 assistance in England.

Following is the information.


Development of Tourism Act 1969 Section 4 assistance



Number of applications
Number approved
Assistance offered £ million


1980–81 outturn
160
43
1·6


1981–82 outturn
190
113
2·2


1982–83 outturn
158
55
1·6


1983–84 outturn
171
56
1·9


1984–85 outturn
224
87
2·2


1985–86 outturn
239
162
3·5


1986–87 outturn
207
145
3·5


1987–88 outturn
168
119
2·5


1988–89 forecast
224
150
3·4

Labour Statistics

Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales by what percentage unemployment has fallen in Wales since June 1987.

Mr. Peter Walker: Between June 1987 and January 1989, seasonally adjusted unemployment has fallen in Wales by 40,900, from 12·6 to 9·2 per cent., a decrease of over 27 per cent.

Mr. Butler: How does that fall compare with the fall in England? What contribution has the increase in self-employment made?

Mr. Walker: I believe that I am correct in saying that, in terms of a percentage fall in unemployment, the north-west of England, the west midlands and Wales have been the three best regions of the United Kingdom. There has been a substantial increase in self-employment during that period. I will send my hon. Friend the full details.

Mr. Roy Hughes: With Welsh coalfields in a near terminal condition, with massive redundancies in the steel industry, including a major closure, is this the time for the Government to come forward with proposals to double the toll on the Severn bridge, our main access point? Why does the Secretary of State not plead with the Chancellor to get rid of that additional tax on the people of Wales?

Mr. Walker: As I have pointed out many times to the hon. Gentleman, the toll on the Severn bridge was imposed during the period of a Labour Government. The toll on the Severn bridge was kept throughout the terms of all


Labour Governments. Unlike the Labour Government, we will swiftly deliver a second bridge. When I read the headlines of the hon. Gentleman's local paper, I found that there is deep concern because there are not enough sites for industrial development. With the enormous demand that is taking place in Newport, the hon. Gentleman is benefiting more than most from the change in the Welsh economy.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Do movements in the unemployment figures result from differences between jobs lost and jobs gained? Is it not a fact that most of the jobs lost have been in industries belonging to the last century and that most of the jobs gained are in industries with a bright future?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. In the period that I mentioned, there have been substantial further job losses in the coal industry and some further job losses in the steel industry. The diversity of the Welsh economy will be one of the greatest benefits to Wales in the years that lie ahead.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Welsh Development Agency has identified the television and film industry as one of the growth sectors to develop more jobs in Gwynedd? In those circumatances, is he aware that his personal veto this morning on the urban plan to provide the shell of a building for a new studio to develop the industry in Caernarfon is seen as sabotage of prospects for that sector? Is he aware that that is contrary to indications given by his civil servants, not only to the company but to the county council and to the Welsh Development Agency? As a result of his veto, the company stands to lose £50,000 to £60,000. Is that his contribution to the economy of the area?

Mr. Walker: I deplore the hon. Gentleman's emotional words. If he has evidence that any official in the Welsh Office in any way said to anybody that this grant would be made, he had better provide it. Whoever did so will certainly be seen by me. He has made an allegtion, and I expect him to substantiate it.
Several people—some of them will known to the hon. Gentleman—have made strong representations to me. If there were any priority in that area, it should be urban aid for Holyhead. I am glad to say that I provide that. The hon. Gentleman should perhaps speak to some of his own colleagues who gave me that advice.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the major ways in which unemployment has been reduced in Wales is through the Government's regional policy of relocating Civil Service and other Government agency jobs to the regions and Wales? Does he find it surprising that some Opposition Members are opposed to relocation?

Mr. Walker: Relocation has had one remarkable effect on Wales. We now have in the Principality the head office of the Export Credits Guarantee Department and the Patent Office. The Companies Registration Office is also in Wales. When I was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry most of those Departments were in London. 1 am glad to say that they are now in Wales.

Mr. Barry Jones: Instead of making pussy-footing radio statements on the 1,000 steel job losses, why did the Secretary of State not fight for them? There are now 3,000 steel and coal job losses ahead. On his first real challenge

since his appointment, the Secretary of State has run away. The right hon. Gentleman is all talk and no fight. Does he not realise the bitterness of the steelworkers, who were in no way consulted? Before Christmas they were offered shares; now they are offered the dole. The right hon. Gentleman has funked his responsibilities. Where is the meat?

Mr. Walker: During the period of this enormous fall in unemployment, there has been an enormous surge of inward investment and great diversification of the economy. The only role of the Labour party is to stir up any bad news that it can get hold of to give a bad image of Wales. The hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the Welsh Office—[Interruption.]—10 years ago when major steel closures were announced. I am delighted that the Welsh steel industry is now modern and has a high level of investment. Will the hon. Gentleman pledge himself to renationalise the steel industry?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Environmental Research

Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to stimulate and encourage research into environmental matters in Wales.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): The Welsh Office has commissioned a number of research projects into environmental matters related to my right hon. Friend's responsibilities in Wales, and with permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall circulate a list in the Official Report and place a copy in the Library of the House.

Mr. Michael: Will the Minister also circulate a list of those items that are being deleted and undermined by him and his right hon. Friend? When the Minister considers the proposed closure of research vessel support services at Barry, the destruction of the environmental research centre at Bangor, the threat to the environment from the Water Bill and the failure of Government Ministers to obtain a separate water authority for Wales, does he agree that the Secretary of State is presiding over the destruction of environmental research in Wales?

Mr. Grist: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman took a little too long in preparing that question. I have read his speech in this House, in which he made most of those points, and some of his contributions in the Water Bill Committee, in which he made other points which have been well answered by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. The research vessel services from Barry are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I understand that the move has been made for the best scientific reasons.

Mr. Morgan: The Minister is right to say that the Department of Education and Science is formally and departmentally responsible. But, in pursuit of joint oversight responsibilities for these facilities in Wales, did the Secretary of State for Wales plead with that Department on the ground of regional policy alone—as is pointed out in the early-day motion of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower), who is sadly absent today—that it makes no sense to move hi-tech jobs in


Government research and development from an area such as south Wales to an overheated area in the south-east of England?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman, too, is repeating what he said in the debate. This is a decision by the Natural Environment Research Council and it is for the best scientific reasons. There is no other similar institute which has its vessel separate from its main body. Southampton university will be a world-wide centre of excellence for oceanographic research.

Following is the list:


Environmental research projects commissioned by Welsh Office as at February 1989


Project
Researcher(s)


Environmental Remote Sensing
University College Cardiff


Conwy Estuary Invertebrate Study
University College of North Wales


Evaluation of the Performance of pre-treatment facilities on marine discharges
Welsh Water Authority


Baseline Study of Acid Rain in Welsh Lakes
University of Bradford


Effect of Storm Water overflows on river water/biota quality
Welsh Water Authority


Investigation of the changes in Water quality and quantity arising from upland drainage of afforested areas
Institute of Terrestrial Ecology


Hydrological impact of small-scale broad-leaved forestry on lowland sites
Institute of Hydrology


The movement of sediments in Swansea Bay
University of Southampton


Ecological modelling of the impact of atmospheric pollution afforestation, soil type and land use
University College Cardiff


Organic compounds in Welsh Soils
University of Lancaster


Survey of contaminated land in Wales
University of Liverpool


Body Burden and exposure to heavy metals
Singleton Hospital, Swansea


Tree and Shrub seeding experiments
University of Liverpool


Survey of analytical capability for radioactivity in Wales
University College Cardiff


Development of a national system for monitoring wastes arising in Wales
Aspinwall and Company


Minimisation of waste movement
M. J. Carter Associates


Effects of ozone and other gaseous pollutants on Welsh vegetation
Institute of Terrestrial Ecology


Morbidity and heavy metal content of Welsh soil
University College Cardiff


Whole Body Monitoring for Chernobyl radiation
Singleton Hospital, Swansea


Radon Survey in Wales
National Radiological Protection Board


Assessment of Reclamation Methods for Contaminated Sites in Wales
Richards Moorehead and Laing, Ruthin


Effectiveness of coastal defence structures in Wales
Polytechnic of Wales, Pontypridd


Monitoring of East Pentwyn and Bournville landslips
Gwent County Council


Site specific monitoring of landslips using BRE methods
Polytechnic of Wales, Pontrypridd, and Building Research Establishment


Site-specific monitoring of landslips using microseismic/acoustic emission techniques
Polytechnic of Wales, Pontypridd


Durability and performance of 'fixtone' in coast protection structures
Polytechnic of Wales, Pontypridd

Project
Researcher(s)


Coastal process monitoring, Carmarthen Bay
University College of Swansea


Wales Terrestrial Rural Data Base
University College Cardiff


Welsh Landscape Study: the use of Remote Sensing to classify landscape
University of Nottingham, Wye College, University of London


Deeside Thematic Geological Mapping
British Geological Survey


Wrexham Thematic Geological Mapping
British Geological Survey


Assessment of sand and gravel resources in the Lleyn Peninsula, Gwynedd
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Liverpool


Welsh Highways Landscape Study
MWT Landscapes, Avon


Study of Exposed Highway Rock and Scree Slopes
Richards, Moorehead Laing Ltd.


A55 Ecological Study
D. Lovejoy and Partners

Wrexham and East Denbighshire Water Company

Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of the Wrexham and East Denbighshire water company; and what matters they discussed.

Mr. Grist: I have had no recent meeting with representatives of the company.

Mr. Davies: Will the Minister confirm that the Wrexham and East Denbighshire water company will not be offered the protection under the Water Bill that is available to the Welsh water authority? Will he confirm, therefore, that it will be open to hostile and foreign bids and that such a bid could provide a foothold in the Welsh water industry for further takeovers? If protection is good for the Welsh water authority, why is it not good for the Wrexham water company?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to the first part of his question. As the company is worth less than £30 million, it does not come under the same rules as the water authority when privatised. But we have nothing against foreign investment in British companies, and I cannot think why the hon. Gentleman should take that line. I expect that he appreciates that about 30 per cent. of water in the United States is owned by French companies, and I have not heard the Americans yelling.

Dr. Marek: Will the Minister talk to the Wrexham and East Denbighshire water company? Is he aware that only last week there was another incident of water pollution where a known carcinogen, formaldehyde, was tipped into the river and only fortuitously the company's intakes were closed at the time? There is a general lack of belief in Wrexham that the Welsh Office intends to clean up the River Dee. When will the Welsh Office, and its agent the Welsh water authority, prosecute those people successfully and give the public the confidence that their water is clean and fit to drink?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman had better prove that it is not clean and fit to drink. I have no proof of that. The responsibility for the serious incident to which he referred was shared among several water authorities. I believe that further steps are being taken.

Poverty

Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his Department's strategy for dealing with acute poverty and deprivation in the Cynon Valley and other districts with a high percentage of low-income households.

Mr. Peter Walker: It is difficult to answer such a question in the short time available for a parliamentary answer. As this Government are carrying out massive programmes of expenditure in the Cynon Valley in education, health, housing improvements, factory building, derelict land clearance, urban aid, regional grants and training, I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, circulate the details in the Official Report and place a copy in the Library.

Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Secretary of State's statement today show an increase of 67 per cent. in the money that will be spent in the valleys of south Wales? That represents £7 million, which is made up of £1 million for inflation and £2·6 million for the garden festival, leaving only £3 million for all the valleys of south Wales. Is it not yet another of the Secretary of State's hot air balloons? How will it help the people of Cynon Valley—the poorest district in Wales, the district with most of the problems that have been identified in the surveys conducted for HTV by the Cardiff business school, and the area where 60 per cent. of households have incomes of £4,000 a year or less? Has the Secretary of State read the last sentence of the Cardiff business school report, which states:
If, as we are led to believe, Wales is drawing on a new era, nobody has informed Mountain Ash about it."?

Mr. Walker: Although I had intended to publish my detailed answer in the Official Report, in view of the hon. Lady's long supplementary question, I shall place my answer on the record now. Since January 1986, the number of unemployed claimants has fallen by 27 per cent. Since 1984 regional industrial support has been provided towards capital investment of £79 million, with associated forecasts of about 3,900 jobs. More than £11·5 million has been spent on a broad range of training measures. The Welsh Development Agency has provided more than 500,000 sq ft of new factory floor space. Land reclamation covering 600 acres and costing about £6 million has been completed. Economic regeneration in the area has been supported through the allocation of more than £5 million of urban programme resources. More than 6,000 houses in the constituency have been improved.
All those things cost tens of millions of pounds. The hon. Lady's old trick of quoting one item as an example for all the valleys has not come off this time. I hope that everyone will read the full reply.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the very ambitious urban aid programme that was announced today will be warmly welcomed and that there will be special pleasure that Clwyd has not suffered at the hands of south Wales, although we should have liked to see more projects? Is he aware that there will be general satisfaction with the help that he has given to St. Asaph business park, which is one of the best developments to have emerged in Rhuddlan for a long time?

Mr. Walker: The urban aid programme to the Principality is of particular help to north Wales. Although

the biggest concentration of help is in the valleys, in total the programme will do much good, create many jobs and improve the environment throughout Wales. Our record compares unbelievably well with that of the previous Government who were responsible for such matters.

Mr. Murphy: Does not the so-called initiative for our valleys involve more fantasy than reality? What our valleys want are better schools, better hospitals and better housing. Does the Secretary of State not accept that our valley councils have lost more in rate support grant over the past 10 years than he has given them in new money in the latest package? Does he not also accept that much of his programme was going to come about in any event, that he has deliberately delayed the urban programme announcement, that six of our valleys are still not designated areas under the Act and that a proper revitalisation of the valleys would require massive and genuinely new investment spread over at least eight years, not advertising hype spread over three?

Mr. Walker: I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for making such a speech just before a by-election, but I am glad to tell him that tomorrow I shall go through every detail of the valleys programme and I look forward to the Labour party publishing beside each item what the Labour Government achieved in their last five years. I look forward to reading that comparison. I can only say that in dealing with derelict land, providing new jobs and building factories we dwarf anything that the Labour party ever contemplated.
Following are the details:
Since January 1986 the number of unemployed claimants in the Aberdare travel to work area has fallen by 27 per cent. Since 1984 regional industrial support has been provided towards capital investment of £79 million with associated forecast of some 3,900 new and 900 safeguarded jobs. Over £11·5 million has been spent on a broad range of training measures, including YTS and wider opportunities for women.
The Welsh Development Agency has provided over 500,000 sq ft of new factory floor space since 1979 and within its current programme the agency is planning to build a further 16 units. Land reclamation covering 600 acres and costing some £6 million has been completed or is under way or planned.
Economic regeneration in the area has also been supported through the allocation of over £5 million of urban programme resource since 1979 towards schemes submitted by Cynon Valley borough council. In addition this morning I have announced more than a further £1 million for 1989–90.
The Government have made a substantial investment towards the cost of improving the A4059 at Aberdare and Abercynon. Furthermore, the Welsh Office has supported the county council's proposal which led to the reopening in September 1988 of the passenger rail link to Aberdare.
On housing since 1979, work on over 6,000 grant improvement projects, costing £19 million, has been completed in addition to enveloping schemes on 450 dwellings at a cost of £3·3 million. Schemes are in hand to improve an additional 500 homes at a cost of £4·5 million.
In the last five years, £9 million has been spent on improving school buildings in the area, and an allocation of £800,000 has recently been made towards the cost of providing a 40-bed unit for the elderly at Aberdare general hospital.

Barrage Schemes

Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he intends to make any proposals to alleviate the impact on the ports of south Wales of proposed barrage schemes.

Mr. Peter Walker: I am not aware of any direct adverse effects on port activities in south Wales arising from current barrage proposals.

Mr. Stern: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a clear distinction between the proposed Severn barrage, which could severely affect all ports and port-related industries in and around the area, and other barrages such as the Cardiff bay barrage, which will have no such effect?

Mr. Walker: There have been full consultations with the port authorities about the Cardiff bay barrage, which is the one for which I have responsibility, and I do not believe that it will have an adverse effect. As for the Severn barrage, the proposal will need to be examined thoroughly before any conclusions are reached. Clearly, however, the port interests will have to be considered carefully before any such proposal is made.

Mr. Flynn: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Cardif business school has reported on the barrage and on the valleys of south Wales? Will he tell us why he refused to give an interview on the television programme referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd)? Is it true that, while refusing to be interrogated by the House and on television, he is carrying out government by press conference, as he is holding one tomorrow? Is it true that he is beginning to unravel? Is Peter the piffle artist becoming Peter the pimpernel, who is never around when there is bad news about?

Mr. Walker: As for that last phrase, the hon. Gentleman obtained coverage in this morning's papers, and I am surprised that he has repeated it for tomorrow's.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that when I launched the valleys initiative I challenged the Labour party to choose it as a subject for the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. The then Opposition spokesman said that that would quickly be done, but I am still waiting for Labour Members to choose the subject for debate in the Select Committee. Perhaps they would like to choose it for the next one.
As for the television programme, I was asked to appear 36 hours in advance, having been sent the large number of documents. I said that I would be happy to appear on any television programme about the valleys initiative at any time.

Health Service

Mr. Geraint Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the present state of the Health Service in Wales.

Mr. Grist: Record numbers of doctors and nurses are treating record numbers of patients. The increase in resources that we propose for the Health Service in 1989 will enable the NHS to extend its remarkable record of achievement.

Mr. Howells: I am sure that the Minister is aware that the people of mid-Wales are succeeding in their concerted effort to raise £500,000 to install a scanner at Bronglais hospital, Aberystwyth. I am sure that he is also aware of the view of the majority of those people that the Government should re-establish the Mid-Wales health

authority. Will he give an assurance that he will consider the matter, and also tell us the latest developments on the building of the second phase of the hospital?

Mr. Grist: There are no proposals at present for the re-establishment of the Mid-Wales health authority. I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman raise the subject of the scanner proposal, and I wish it the best of success.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: If any new hospitals are built in Wales, such as the East Glamorgan hospital, will the funding for those hospitals, in terms of capital costs, be entirely met by the Welsh Office or, as a result of last week's disclosure in Construction News, are we to take it that Treasury guidelines to introduce private sector money into such building will mean that the commitment from the Welsh Office will be less?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman should know that we are still awaiting the proposals of the Mid-Glamorgan health authority for the funding of that new hospital. When we see those proposals we shall arrive at a judgment. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have no intention to cut the necessary construction of new hospitals, such as that to replace East Glamorgan hospital.

NHS Review

Mr. Livsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the National Health Service review as it affects Wales

Mr. Raffan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the Government's National Health Service review, "Working for Patients", as it caters for the distinctive health care needs and circumstances in Wales.

Mr. Peter Walker: The conclusions of my review of the National Health Service in Wales are included in the White Paper "Working for Patients", Cm. 555. I am confident that by increasing the responsibility and accountability of those working in the service, by increasing patient choice, and by ensuring appropriate rewards for those who deliver results, my proposals will lead to even better patient care for the people of Wales.

Mr. Livsey: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is great concern in rural Wales that the opt-out proposals in the review are totally unsuitable to that area and that the general practitioner services mentioned in the review are not properly structured to deliver the sort of services that should be provided in mid-Wales?
Will the nurses' pay review in Wales be fully funded by the Government?

Mr. Walker: I can understand the hon. Gentleman expressing his concern about the opting-out of hospitals in rural Wales, having looked at some of the press comments on the proposals. When the hon. Gentleman sees the working papers he will discover that no hospital will be able to ask for trust status unless it agrees to carry out the whole range of services that must be undertaken in that area. Thereafter, it will be the responsibility of the Welsh Office to monitor those hospitals to ensure that they carry out all those services. I promise the hon. Gentleman that no trust hospitals will be created without those hospitals


first agreeing to the totality of their obligations and without their being monitored thereafter to see that they fulfil those obligations.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that GP practices throughout Wales differ from one locality to another and that the considerations for the rural areas are wholly different.
Announcements will be made about the nurses' pay award, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that public and Government expenditure will be considerably increased throughout the Principality as a result of that award.

Mr. Raffan: As the review referred to a much higher incidence of heart disease, strokes and most forms of cancer in Wales compared to the rest of the United Kingdom, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Health Promotion Authority for Wales will have a much higher profile than it has had and a budget to match? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the authority's detailed proposals will be published before the summer, and will those proposals include advertising campaigns on tobacco and alcohol abuse, which account for more than 100,000 deaths a year in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Walker: I share my hon. Friend's concern and that is why in the Welsh section of the White Paper I strongly stressed the importance of health promotion and the preventive side of health in Wales, which have an enormous contribution to make. At the moment I am examining a large number of detailed proposals that have been put to me. We have a meeting within the next couple of weeks to discuss those proposals and I assure my hon. Friend that we will publish the details as quickly as possible.

Mr. Michael: In the light of the White Paper, what importance should the public in Wales now place on the 10-year plans being prepared by health authorities and considered by his Department? Will the right hon. Gentleman exempt Wales from the opting-out schemes, which could make those plans meaningless?

Mr. Walker: No. The hon. Gentleman must give more careful thought to the detail of what he describes as the "opting-out schemes". Those schemes do not represent opting out, as hospitals will remain within the National Health Service. By opting out one decides to delegate some of the managerial decisions to a lower level. If that can be done with improved efficiency with the whole range of services continuing to be carried out, there is no reason why the Secretary of State for Wales should not give approval to such a scheme. Thereafter, however, the Secretary of State and the Welsh Office will have the duty to monitor such a scheme. Such schemes should be judged on their merits and improved efficiency and they should mean that, in total, the hospitals still carry out all the functions required in the district.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest percentage unemployed for (a) Wales and (b) each of the five employment areas with the highest level of unemployment in Wales at that date.

Mr. Peter Walker: On 12 January 1989 the seasonally adjusted unemployed rate in Wales was 9·2 per cent. The unadjusted rates for the five travel-to-work areas with the

highest unemployment on 12 January 1989 were Pwllheli, 19·1 per cent.; Cardigan, 18·9 per cent.; south Pembrokeshire, 18·8 per cent.; Aberdare, 18·4 per cent.; and Holyhead, 18·3 per cent. I am pleased to say that unemployment in all these areas has fallen dramatically in the last 12 months—by 21 per cent. in Pwllheli; by 22 per cent. in Cardigan; by 25 per cent. in south Pembrokeshire; by 13 per cent. in Aberdare and by 16 per cent. in Holyhead.

Mr. Wigley: Do not these figures of between 18 and 20 per cent. in unemployment black spots, when compared to the levels of 2 and 3 per cent. in Hertfordshire, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire, give the lie to the public relations exercise that the Secretary of State is undertaking which says that the economy of Wales is coming right? Will he now reconsider his advice that local initiative will solve all these problems, given that he has undermined local initiative in the example quoted earlier about people who have been willing to put up £1·7 million of locally raised money for a project which was undermined by the Welsh Office?

Mr. Walker: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is emotionally carried away by this decision. I think that he should explain—

Mr. Wigley: It matters.

Mr. Walker: I think that he should explain that virtually all the money for that project was to be public expenditure. The local authority and central Government were asked to provide it all.
I mentioned the reduction in unemployment that has taken place in Holyhead, and, while the decrease has riot been as good there as in some other areas, the announcements that I made this morning gave a priority to Holyhead. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman goes to Holyhead and explains that in his view the priority should have been given to the television studios and not to Holyhead.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Publications

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what publications the Church Commissioners plan during 1989.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): During 1989 the Church Commissioners will be producing a range of publications including their report and accounts for 1988, the 17th report of the central stipends authority, a series of leaflets describing the work of the Church Commissioners, and a brochure on commended entries for the parsonage design award competition.

Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the country yearns for a moral lead? Would the Church Commissioners consider using their publication budget to meet that moral need, especially as certain Church leaders are failing to give it?

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend will have noted the debate in the House last Monday on the initiative by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller). On the


question of a moral lead by the bishops and others, the overriding Christian message is not so much moral exhortation as justification by faith from moral failure. There can never be a surfeit of the propagation of that fundamental message of grace. My hon. Friend's message to the bishops will certainly be noted.

Mr. Frank Field: Following the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), does the right hon. Gentleman agree that last week's meeting of the ecclesiastical committee and the legislative committee might point to a useful moral lead to be given by the commissioners? We heard that some bishops had sent on training courses in preparation for ordination people who could not be ordained because they had been divorced and were remarried. Would not a moral lead to be to make sure that those people are paid while we come to a conclusion with the legislative committee about whether that piece of legislation was expedient?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair and pertinent point. A more definitive response to him must await the time which will probably arrive when the clergy ordination Measure is taken on the Floor of the House. Then we shall all have an opportunity to raise such issues at length.

General Synod,

Mr. Gow: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, when he next intends to be present at a meeting of the General Synod of the Church of England.

Mr. Alison: I intend to be present at the next meeting of the General Synod which is scheduled for July of this year.

Mr. Gow: While recognising the undoubted right of all members of the General Synod to deeply held views for or against the policies of the present Government, would it be helpful if my right hon. Friend were to point out to the General Synod that its reputation would be enhanced if its members, when in Synod, devoted more time to matters spiritual than to matter political?

Mr. Alison: I certainly note what my hon. Friend says. He will know that there is a temptation in that lesser assembly to emulate the topics and methods of procedure of the greater assembly of which he and I are members. He will also know that the General Synod is a creature of Parliament and that it is fully in his hands, as a private Member, to introduce a Bill to abolish the General Synod of the Church of England if he so wishes.

Mr. Winnick: When the right hon. Gentleman attends the Synod, or well before then, will he take the opportunity to congratulate the Archbishop of Canterbury on his excellent statement today, which, while expressing concern—which I share—for any offence caused to the followers of the Islam religion, strongly protests against the sentence of death passed by religious leaders in Iran? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that action is totally unacceptable to British people, including Moslems, who disapprove strongly of what has been said?

Mr. Alison: I take note and respond positively and warmly to what the hon. Gentleman has said, particularly about the Archbishop of Canterbury's statement. There could hardly be a more fundamental demonstration of the

difference between the Christian religion and Islam than the response of the Christian deity to those appalling and unthinkable attacks, which is the foundation of forgiveness in the Christian religion.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

Computer Services

Mr. Allen: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, how many staff are employed by the commission on computer services.

Mr. A. J. Beith (On behalf of the House of Commons Commission): The Computer Officer, who has responsibility to both Houses for computer developments planned for Parliament as a whole, has a staff of two assistant computer officers, one of whom is on secondment to the House, and one full-time and one part-time secretary. In addition, there are 140 computer terminals throughout the Departments of the House which are available to a wide range of staff users.

Mr. Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman consider using some of the time of those operators for the installation of a fax machine which could be used collectively by right hon. and hon. Members rather than duplicating many times a facility that could be provided and serviced by one additional member of staff, or even by current members of staff?

Mr. Beith: That proposal has been considered by the Services Committee. The Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee gave detailed consideration to the possibility of providing further centralised facilities in addition to those provided by the Post Office in the Central Lobby, for which a charge is levied. But the sub-committee concluded that the practical difficulties outweighted the advantages of a centralised service. As the hon. Gentleman said, several right hon. and hon. Members have purchased their own fax machines, the cost of which is reimbursable from the office costs allowances, and sufficient lines are available for all who wish to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Fire and Vandalism

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how many churches within the commissioners' care were damaged by fire or by vandalism in the past year; what were the comparable figures five, 10 and 15 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commission, representing the Church Commissioners): The limited information I have does not extend to most of those churches which are the responsibility of the incumbent and parochial church council, and the commissioners do not have information about fire and vandalism affecting them.

Mr. Greenway: Has my right hon. Friend seen the figures showing that at least one third of our churches and cathedrals have been vandalised by fire or in other ways in the past year? Does he share my worry about that and


about the fact that so many churches have to be locked as a result? Will he note that it is rare for a mosque to be locked and that people of the Islamic faith remain in their mosques to ensure that they are not vandalised. Will he encourage members of the Church of England to show the same fervour in their own churches and to keep them open by watching them and looking after them?

Mr. Alison: Between 1977 and 1982, a total of 56 per cent. of churches suffered theft, and the figures are higher in inner city areas. I take note of what my hon. Friend says: it is a great pity if any parish church has to be locked at a time when members of the public may wish to enter it. A conceivable solution to the problem might be to redraft the guardian angels when they are made redundant from Underground trains and deploy them in parish churches. The Church Commissioners would willingly supply them with wings.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Economic Situation

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had from industries in Wales about the current economic situation.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): I have frequent discussions with industrialists, which confirm an expectation of rising investment.

Mr. Jones: Although investment may be rising, surely the industrialists also made representations about the rise in interest rates and the cost of borrowing? I have certainly received representations from the farming industry in my constituency, whose members are worried about their income levels. One reason why they have low incomes is the rise in interest rates and the cost of borrowing.

Mr. Walker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that rising interest rates present problems, particularly for the farming community, which has to borrow heavily. Inflation also brings problems and must be tackled.
In industry—as opposed to merely the farming industry—the range of facilities offered by the Welsh Development Agency, provided by way of regional selective assistance, makes Wales an attractive place in which to invest. That is why an all-time record for inward investment into Wales was achieved in 1988.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

Peers Gallery

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will estimate the average number of peers who use Peers' Gallery seats on each day of the week; and if he will make a statement.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): It is not possible to provide the information that my hon. Friend requests, as attendance by peers in their Gallery depends largely on the business of the House.

Mr. Greenway: My right hon. Friend and hon. Members on both sides of the House will have noticed that the Peers Gallery is almost invariably empty, even during

Prime Minister's Question Time. Will my right hon. Friend and those responsible soften their hearts and open those seats, formally reserved for peers, to members of the public, hundreds of whom are disappointed every day in their attempts to enter the House? Perhaps peers could be invited into the Special Galleries of the House which are also almost invariably empty?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend's specific proposal is a matter for the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee. On sitting days from Monday to Thursday, two rows, each of 12 seats, remain available for peers from 2.30 pm to 5.30 pin. If the 12 seats in the second row are not occupied by peers at 5.30 pm, they can be used by Members' guests. My hon. Friend should also remember that equally generous arrangements are made for Members of the House of Commons in the House of Lords.

Food Programmes

Ms. Walley: To ask the Lord President of the Council how much money has been allocated to introduce healthy and nutritious food programmes covering the Members' and Strangers' Cafeterias.

Mr. Wakeham: The Refreshment Department retains the services of a qualified nutritional adviser on an ad hoc basis, whose fees are paid from the trading account. It is the continuing policy of the Department always to maintain and, where possible, to improve the nutritional content of food served in the. House. However, no money has been allocated specifically for this purpose.

Ms. Walley: I thank the Lord President for that answer. Now that the Commission has turned down the unanimous decision of the Catering Sub-Committee to invite the London food commission to give advice on how healthy and nutritious the food in the Members' arid Strangers' Cafeterias is, what will the Leader of the House do to improve the situation? Does he not realise that many Members on both sides of the House and many staff who work here have to eat morning, noon and night in those cafeterias, and that there is a desperate need to take on the services of people who are qualified and at the forefront of their field in this subject?

Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure that the hon. Lady's views are fully shared by all hon. Members or, indeed, by all members of the Sub-Committee. It is not the Commission's policy to disclose the reasons for its decisions, and I can only assume that the Commission prefer the Refreshment Department's current practices, which were designed to promote healthy and nutritious food in the House.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the London food commission is not a body of recognised dietary experts but a Left-wing organisation?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend's analysis is correct. As I understand it, the London food commission is a consumerist pressure group staffed by academics and investigative journalists. It has no expertise in advising on dietary matters. In addition, its future is uncertain, as the original funding from the GLC is known to be running short. As far as I know, the commission has not found any other source of funding so far.

Mr. Dobson: Setting aside the Lord President's snide references to the London food commission, which has done a considerable amount of good work, I ask him whether, instead of being so complacent, he would be prepared to undertake a thoughtful and organised survey of the views of hon. Members and of the other people who have to use the cafeterias in this place—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: They are jolly good.

Mr. Dobson: Some Conservative Members may think so, but many people think they are flaming lousy.

Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I did not think my remarks were particularly snide; I thought they were straightforward and factual. If there were a need for a review or anything of that sort the initiative would have to come first from the Catering Sub-Committee.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: May I inform my right hon. Friend Friend that I lunch in the cafeteria every day? I have the sense to choose nutritious, healthy food, and I am lasting pretty well.

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes her point effectively.

Order Paper

Mr. Allen: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will take steps to make the Order Paper more user-friendly.

Mr. Wakeham: No, Sir. I am not aware of any significant demand for changes in the form of the Order Paper.

Mr. Allen: Does the Lord President accept that the Order Paper is our daily agenda? If he looks at today's agenda, he will see that it is almost one inch thick. That must represent a tremendous waste of time and paper every day. Will he ensure that parliamentary questions are listed by Department, and consider any other reforms that hon. Members suggest, rather than destroying a vast amount of Amazonian forest each day?

Mr. Wakeham: The Order Paper is designed primarily for the use of right hon. and hon. Members, and I am sure that many of us who have become familiar with its style and format would—contrary to the hon. Gentleman's belief—find the changes that he proposes considerably less convenient. The matter has been considered by the Services Committee; the Order Paper is designed to be of greatest use to the House.
If the hon. Gentleman has suggestions, I advise him to bring them to the attention of the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee.

European Documents

Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will take steps to ensure that European documents are considered by the House of Commons before a common position has been arrived at by the Council of Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wakeham: In their response to the second special report from the House of Commons Select Committee on European Legislation, Session 1985–86, the Government

reaffirmed that they would endeavour to bring forward documents for debate at the earliest appropriate opportunity. That continues to be our objective. In the case of Community legislation subject to the co-operation procedure, it is the Government's aim that parliamentary scrutiny should be completed before a common position is agreed by the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Taylor: As many of the laws that used to be made in the House of Commons are now made by the Council of Ministers, and as we can discuss its decisions for only one and a half hours after 10 o'clock at night, does the Lord President agree that this makes nonsense of democracy and deprives the public of the knowledge of what is going on? Does he also agree that it is an insult to all that Parliament stands for if the House sits from 10 pm to 11.30 pm to discuss matters that have already been decided in Brussels?

Mr. Wakeham: I agree that the way in which the House has dealt with European matters in recent months has left something to be desired, and I am taking steps to try to improve it. However, I do not accept my hon. Friend's contention that some of these matters must be discussed after 10 pm, but I am afraid that they will continue to have to be so. My discussions show that it might be possible substantially to improve the way in which our debates are held.

Mr. Spearing: Is the Leader of the House aware that those who are concerned about this matter are grateful to him for referring to the Select Committee's report of two years ago and that we look forward to the Government implementing the intention that they stated at that time? Does he agree that it is becoming a matter of considerable importance that a common position is reached? A common position is, in effect, the last and combined word—perhaps on a majority vote—of the Council of Ministers, prior to possible amendment by the European Parliament at Strasbourg. Although debates may have to take place after 10 pm, the Leader of the House might care to bear in mind that debates at earlier times on major matters would be more appropriate.

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the strength of what the hon. Gentleman says. He knows the pressures that we are under and that I am trying to do my best to improve some of the apparent weaknesses.

Mr. Dykes: Does not the Lord President of the Council agree that all parts of the House are anxious to get this right, including those who are keen on our membership of the European Community? Does he agree that Jacques Delors' famous 80 per cent. utterance was taken out of context, and that he was advocating greater involvement by the national parliaments? I appreciate the difficulties that my right hon. Friend faces and I am not criticising him, but would it not be a good idea to consider a combination of more all-day European Supply days such as the one next Thursday, longer debates—late at night, if necessary—the sending of more business upstairs to Committee whenever a particular document makes that relevant and also, once a month, having a longer Friday afternoon session so that European enthusiasts, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), myself and others can take part?

Mr. Wakeham: I agree with my hon. Friend that most of his suggestions will form part of the solution , though I think that the House would he reluctant to depart from the view that it should rise at 2.30 on Fridays. However, his other suggestions are more helpful.

Mr. Murphy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises out of Welsh questions and the Secretary of State for Wales' answer to the question that he was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the Secretary of State?"] I see that the bird has flown. He said that there would he no time for a statement on the valleys initiative during Question Time and that he would place a copy of his speech in the Commons Library. Has he asked you for permission to make a statement to the House on the initiative or has he, as he did last week when he refused to make a statement to the House on the Welsh business rate, copped out once again? Is it right that the Secretary of State should hide behind English Tory Members of Parliament, who consistently seem to have their names at the front of the Order Paper when there are Welsh questions, thus denying Welsh Members the right to put their point of view on behalf of their constituents?

Mr. Speaker: I have no knowledge of a statement. Certainly one was not offered today. It may be offered tomorrow, but I do not know.

Mr. Wigley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not totally unacceptable that when only 13 questions were answered on Welsh matters, four of them should have been asked by hon. Members with English constituencies and that most of the questions were answered by a Member representing an English constituency? We have only one chance a month to cover a whole range of problems that are relevant to the people of Wales. When will you be in a position to defend the interests of Welsh Members in this Chamber?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman ought to know, and I ought not to have to keep repeating it, that this is a United Kingdom Parliament. He reserves the right to take part in discussions on other matters. The only Member who was present in the Chamber today who sought to catch my eye and was not called—and I deeply regret it —was the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). However, the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) was called twice, so I do not think that he has any cause for complaint.

Mr. Peter Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. First, I should very much welcome any extension of Welsh Question Time, because that would be such an advantage to the Government side of the House. Secondly, I shall be making a speech tomorrow in Wales in which I shall review in detail the massive progress that has been made under the valleys initiative, and I hope that every hon. Member and everybody in Wales will read it.

Mr. Dickens: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was not called at Question Time, nor did I stand to ask a question. However, as a matter of principle it annoys hon. Members to think that Welsh Members should adopt such an attitude, because millions of pounds of English taxpayers' money are directed towards Wales. We have given Wales one of the best Secretaries of State

in the Cabinet. It ill behoves Welsh Members to suggest that this is an English Parliament. We are entitled to look at how our money is being spent in Wales.

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a very serious point involved here. You have always said that you think it important that this House should be given information first. You will remember that on the occasion of the first valleys initiative statement we had to raise many points with you in order to persuade the right hon. Gentleman to come here 24 hours after he had made a statement in Wales. During Question Time today —and this involves your position, Mr. Speaker—the Secretary of State said that he could not deal adequately with the question on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) because there was not enough time in a parliamentary answer. Yet he then stood up and said that he would be making a statement in the valleys tomorrow.
One might point out that this morning he issued to the press a 20-page document which he still has not come to the House to answer for. Is it not a fact that if the right hon. Gentleman was dissatisfied with the time that would be available by way of a normal parliamentary answer, he could have opted—as any Minister, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, could—to take that question at the end of Question Time and then face proper intensive questions, or he could have made a statement?

Mr. Peter Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman, who has been deposed from his position as shadow Secretary of State for Wales. The document that I issued this morning on urban aid has always been issued in that form by all Governments. Secondly, the speech that I shall be making tomorrow will give in great detail the marvellous progress made under the valleys initiative.

Mr. Alan Williams: Not here.

Mr. Peter Walker: The right hon. Gentleman says "Not here". When he was shadow Secretary of State and I challenged him to have this debate in the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, he said, "We soon will." The Labour party has never chosen it as a subject.

Mr. Win Griffiths: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I will allow one more point of order, as the hon. Member was not called during Question Time.

Mr. Win Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to the statement by the Secretary of State for Wales about the speech he is going to make, may I ask whether he can tell us if that speech will be included in the expenses of the Pontypridd by-election?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think we can profitably continue Question Time.

Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On a number of occasions you have said that it is your belief that any initiatives being announced by the Government by way of statement are best announced to the House. If the Secretary of State for Wales is indeed going to say anything new tomorrow, surely he should be saying it here. If his excuse is that he will not be saying anything new, I hope that the newspapers will note that he will just be churning out the same old stuff yet again. If he proposes to say something new, I hope that, as the guardian of the


interests of all parts of the House, you, Mr. Speaker, will make representations to try to make sure that he does it in the House rather than just making a speech or holding a press conference, even if it is in Wales.

Mr. Speaker: I shall look carefully at the speech of the Secretary of State.

BILL PRESENTED

COMMON LAND (RECTIFICATION OF REGISTERS) BILL

Mr. Tony Favell, supported by Mr. David Harris, presented a Bill to remove from registers of common land

and registers of town or village greens dwellinghouses registered under the Commons Registration Act 1965 which had been used as dwellinghouses for a minimum of twenty years immediately prior to the commencement of that Act; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 24 February and to be printed. [Bill 79.]

Points of Order

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has always been said that the House is concerned with the rights of individuals and that any injustice, or possible injustice, to an individual is as much the concern of the House of Commons as is injustice to a large number of people. Is it not a fact that the very serious death threat that has been made against a British citizen—a death threat made by someone who is, in effect, the leader of a foreign country with which we have diplomatic relations—is of such importance that we should have a statement at the earliest opportunity?
There are two matters that I wish to raise with you, Mr.. Speaker. The first concerns the protection of the individual, which is a matter for the Home Secretary, and the second concerns the state of Anglo-Iranian relations. Many of us believe that diplomatic relations with Iran should be broken off. I hope that I am not in any way abusing the opportunity to raise a point of order with you, but will there be an opportunity for the House to question a Minister at the earliest opportunity? I hoped that we could do that today, but I trust that we shall certainly have an opportunity tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: That matter may well arise during Prime Minister's Question Time tomorrow.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You and some other Members of Parliament are residents of Westminster. I am not sure whether you are a ratepayer in Westminster, but, as a resident of this building, you might well be one. It has been suggested that Westminster ratepayers can call for an extraordinary audit into the council's affairs. The council has spent £1 million paying off Mr. Brooke, the chief executive, to keep his mouth shut. 11 is possible within the law for ratepayers to call for an extraordinary audit.
I have the idea that, as you, Mr. Speaker, live here, we could have a round robin and you could head it. There are one or two Opposition Members who live up the road who would sign. I am not too sure that we would get too many Tories to sign. I am pretty sure that if we started things here, we could get an extraordinary audit and sort out this Lady Porter job.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member might start the round robin.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While we are on local government matters,

perhaps Derbyshire county council could be included in the extraordinary audit so that we might establish why Mr. Reg Race has lasted only nine months and the pay-off has not been announced to the public.

Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have been alerted, during the weekend, to the serious situation which has arisen again in Cleveland. It is a matter which Parliament has yet to debate. There has been a judicial inquiry into what happened, but many of ray constituents are being subjected, once again, to serious allegations, although they have been cleared in court. I wonder whether there is any way in which the Secretary of State for Health can be brought to the House to make a statement about child sex abuse in Cleveland. The Government clearly refuse to give us an opportunity to debate the matter, despite my asking for a debate on no fewer than a 12 occasions.
The Government were clearly unaware of the subterranean effort to bring the issue to the fore. It is no coincidence that there is a letter signed by 11 paediatricians, a letter from a psychologist and letters in the local press attacking the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and me, and that there is to be a seminar at Teesside polytechnic next weekend, at which the guest speaker is—

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me? I shall not be there.

Mr. Holt: The matter is serious. We ought to have a statement from the Government so that my constituents and those of my friend and colleague the hon. Member for Middlesbrough can have their minds put at rest.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that what the hon. Member has said has been carefully noted by members on the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand the reply that you gave my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), but is it not possible to ask the Leader of the House, who is present, when we will have a statement about Mr. Rushdie and the ayatollah's decision? This is a matter of great importance to the British people. Can we have a Government statement at the earliest possible moment? As the Leader of the House is here, perhaps he can give us an idea of when a statement will be made.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the Leader of the House has listened carefully and will have noted what has been said on this important matter.

Orders of the Day — Transport (Scotland) Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 4

PENSION SCHEMES

'The S.T.G. staff pension fund and the S.T.G. Transport Operatives Pension Scheme (T.O.P.S.) shall continue in operation, and it shall be a condition of sale that any new company operating any undertaking disposed of under section 1 above shall participate in them.'.—[Mr. Wilson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Brian Wilson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take amendment No. 17, in clause 12, page 6, line 32, at end insert
'and shall ensure that employees' pension rights are in no way diminished by the operation of this Act.'

Mr. Wilson: The new clause and amendment No. 17 deal with the pension rights of employees of the various sectors of the Scottish Bus Group under the present system and our concerns about how those rights will be affected by privatisation. New clause 4 simply asks that the Scottish Transport Group staff pension fund and the transport operatives pension scheme—TOPS—continue in operation and that it should be a condition of sale that any new company operating any undertaking disposed of under the Bill should participate in them. In other words, we are seeking to defend the rights of those who work within the Scottish Transport Group and to say that they and their rights cannot be sold off like so many cans of beans.
At present, the vast majority of people who work for the Scottish Transport Group come within a pension scheme—TOPS. The latest TOPS report and accounts list the participating employers as all those who are to be sold off under the Bill. There are 10,473 members of TOPS, not only contributing members but pensioner and deferred pensioner members. There seems to be general agreement that the scheme is well run, well managed and extremely beneficial to those who have, in many cases, worked for the Scottish Transport Group for many years. The correspondence I have received on the subject shows that members of the pension scheme are appreciative of what they consider to be a good scheme which is advantageous to their interests.
The scheme provides a pension on retirement linked to final pensionable pay near that time. As pay increases, pension expectation rises in line. For 40 years' membership, members receive a pension of two thirds pensionable pay near retirement.
The STG pension schemes are good. They have been revised at regular intervals and have been improved with members being contracted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme with subsequent savings in national insurance compensation. The employees' contribution is 5 per cent. of pensionable salary and they are allowed to make additional voluntary contributions if they wish. The

employers pay the whole cost of the benefits for employees and their dependants. Those contributions are normally in excess of those paid by employees.
From everything I have said, I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree that it is a model pension scheme, which is what one would expect from the public sector. A person who has worked for 40 years for the Scottish Transport Group or one of its subsidiaries will receive a maximum pension of, as I have said, two thirds of pensionable salary. Therefore, someone who was earning £12,000 per annum would receive a pension of £8,000 per annum.
There are many benefits other than the retirement pension. There is an early retirement pension, a late retirement pension, an ill-health retirement pension and, perhaps more important, an in-built provision for index linking so that it is not simply a straightforward sum each year. A lump sum on retirement is also possible.
TOPS has been approved by the Inland Revenue superannuation fund under the Finance Act 1970. This is important because, from such approval, benefits stem to employees in tax relief on their contributions and their lump sums on retirement or death. The pension benefits are taxed, taking into account personal tax relief. Approval by the Inland Revenue also means that there may be limits on the contributions employees pay and on the amount of their benefits.
On every score, it is a well established and well operated pension scheme and it is no wonder that there is immense concern among employees of the Scottish Bus Group about the implications for the scheme after privatisation. They have only to look south of the border at some of the experiences of their former workmates within public sector bus operations to see what the alternative propositions might be.
It is tragic that any Government should, with such equanimity, be prepared to take away the rights of working people and the right to peace of mind for which they have paid over the years. One cannot do that in any sense of fairness or justice to those who have, without any political considerations, given their working lives to the Scottish Bus Group and its subsidiaries. There is contempt for those working people in the idea that pension rights can be swept aside together with their best interests and peace of mind. That is the proposition contained in the Bill. Make no mistake: nothing in the Bill will safeguard the interests of the employees of the Scottish Bus Group after it has been broken up and sold off, perhaps to the highest bidders.
When the Minister replied in Committee to our amendments and proposed new clauses, he said—as he has tended to say throughout the passage of the Bill—that the Government can take to themselves the power to give certain safeguards. He pointed out that clause 12 enables the Secretary of State to make orders to protect pension rights with respect to subsidiaries of the Scottish Transport Group after privatisation. The Minister told us that clause 12 provided for the Secretary of State to take into account representations made by those who administer the pension scheme in question. He assured us that the preservation of a proper pension scheme would be a consideration taken into account by the Secretary of State in determining to whom the subsidiaries of the Scottish Transport Group were to be sold. On every count, the Minister's defence on pension rights is that it will be within the powers of the Government to safeguard the interests of workers.
I take exception to that and regard it as inadequate, for two fundamental reasons. First, experience does nothing to reassure us that the Government will use the powers they have taken to themselves to interfere with the untrammelled workings of the market place. Many Opposition Members have severe doubts about the likelihood of the Secretary of State making orders for the implementation of a pension scheme after privatisation if the scheme introduced by the new owner was unsatisfactory.
Secondly, what will happen in the years after privatisation? As has been seen clearly from the English and Welsh experience, the initial sales of subsidiaries of the Scottish Bus Group may be only the beginning of a long and complicated saga. I have visited Southampton within the past few days to see what had become of one of the subsidiaries there—Hampshire Bus. What happened there was a classic example of asset stripping. A substantial part of Hampshire Bus—the operative side—was sold to another owner. As a result, many of the workers' previous pension rights have already disintegrated. I have not noticed the Secretary of State for Transport coming to the House with orders to reverse that process.
If the subsidiaries of the Scottish Bus Group are released into the private sector, with all the rhetoric about freedom and competition, one of the rights that will be established is the right of a buyer to sell on to a new owner. Whatever safeguards the Minister may tell us, to salve his conscience, are built into the legislation, the truth is that they will disappear immediately further sales take place. If the Minister can give us any example from the privatisation programme, in which the Government have been engaged since 1979, of a Secretary of State coming to the House in order to bring in check private owners who have subsequently done away with the right of the employees of former public companies, I should be extremely interested to hear about it. Such a precedent does not exist and will not be established under the relatively minor privatisation programme that we are discussing today. Unless safeguards of pension rights are written into the Bill now, it is extremely unlikely that those rights will be safeguarded subsequently.

Mr. John McAllion: New clause 4 calls for the continuation of the Scottish Transport Group staff pension fund and of its transport operatives pension scheme—otherwise known as TOPS. The reason why new clause 4 seeks to do that is set out in amendment No. 17 which states that we aim to
ensure that employees' pension rights are in no way diminished".
To secure that aim we want it to be a condition of sale to any private operator that pension conditions are preserved through the existing pension fund schemes. The existing arrangements are well established. Both the staff pension fund and TOPS are in the hands of trustees who run them through management committees. We are told in the notes on clauses that the management committee of the staff pension fund consists of group representatives and staff representatives in equal numbers, and that the management committee of TOPS consists of four members from the management of the Scottish Transport Group and three members from the trade unions, representing the workers.
However, in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) pointed out that the

report and accounts for 1987–88 referred to six trustees responsible for TOPS and a management committee of 10. I do not know which figure is correct, although the Minister did not contradict my hon. Friend in Committee. I do not know whether there are 10 members of the management committee or only seven, as is referred to in the notes on clauses. I hope that the Minister will clear that up when he replies. It is fairly important to know with whom we are dealing when winding up the scheme. We need to know whether it is a 10-strong or a seven-strong management committee, with a majority of management representatives. That was not made clear by the Minister or the Government in Committee.
There are good reasons why the schemes should be continued, even under the new privatised regime. The schemes involve all the subsidiaries of the Scottish Bus Group and are therefore comprehensive and national, covering more than 10,000 members. By definition, a scheme of that size must be better than a scheme that is based on an individual privatised subsidiary or on one privatised company on its own. We can take as an example Strathtay bus company in Tayside, which is to be privatised and which has only 461 employees. If that company were to set up a new pension scheme based on only 461 employees, the likelihood is that that scheme would in no way match a scheme based on more than 10,000 members, as is the case with the Scottish Transport Group. The principle that applies is, the bigger the scheme, the better the benefits to the people involved.
By opposing new clause 4 and amendment No. 17, the Minister seems to be trying to deny to the people who will be transferred to the new privatised subsidiaries the kind of benefits enjoyed by members of big schemes, such as the existing scheme. In 1987–88 the total investment income for TOPS was £6,208,000. The total income for TOPS in that year, in contributions from the company and the members, as well as transfers of pension rights from other schemes was £13,426,000. In the same year expenditure on benefits and other costs amounted to £3,104,000, leaving a net addition to the scheme of £10,322,000.
The Minister will have to explain to me and everyone else how a scheme with such benefits and based on more than 10,000 members can be matched by a privatised scheme covering only 461 employees. It seems common sense to say that if the Minister transfers the pension rights of existing employees of the Scottish Transport Group to the new privatised subsidiaries he will, by definition, sign away the substantial benefits that the employees enjoy under the existing scheme.
Under the existing TOPS arrangement, for example, the employees' contribution amounts to 5 per cent. of pensionable salary. The member can add to that voluntarily, if desired. However, the employers must pay the whole cost of the benefits that are not covered by the employees' contributions. That invariably means that the employer—the Scottish Transport Group and, through the Scottish Transport Group, Her Majesty's Government—ends up paying substantially more than the employees. I cannot see any private sector operator agreeing to match the scale of the contributions currently made by the Scottish Transport Group and Her Majesty's Government.
4 pm
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West and the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) had an interesting exchange about the merits of the existent or non-existing pension scheme run by Magic Bus and Stagecoach. It was never made clear, if Magic Bus and Stagecoach are to have schemes, what they would be. Whatever the schemes may or may not be, they will not be able to match the transport operatives pension scheme which is run by the Scottish Transport Group. The Minister has failed to counter that argument. I look forward to hearing his contribution and finding out whether he can guarantee to employees whose companies are about to be privatised that their future pension rights will be as secure as they are under TOPS.
TOPS benefits are substantial. Somebody who has spent 40 years of his life working for the Scottish Transport Group would receive two thirds of his pensionable salary on retirement. If he earned £12,000 in his last year, he would receive £8,000 from TOPS. That is a substantial benefit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said, there are other benefits over and above that—for example, the early retirement pension, the ill-health retirement pension, the lump sum on retirement, insurance so that any surviving dependants will receive the pension rights of the deceased, and so on. Most important, there is an assurance that pension rights are linked to the retail prices index.
If the experience of the National Bus Company, which was privatised in England, is taken as a model, we can be sure that privatised subsidiary companies will not index-link future pension rights for their employees in the way that TOPS has done for Scottish Transport Group employees. All 72 of the privatised National Bus Company subsidiaries left the best scheme, which was for them the equivalent of TOPS, and broke the link between pension rights and the rise in the cost of living. It is likely that the Scottish experience will be exactly the same as that in England. In Committee, the Minister confirmed that, saying:
All accrued benefits under the scheme will continue to receive index linking in future.
The key words are "accrued benefits". Until the moment of privatisation, benefits will be secured by index linking into the future. What about future pension rights when the Government have ended the scheme, abolished TOPS and transferred the employees into new pension schemes with new companies? The Minister also said:
 Pensions increase arrangements for new pension schemes will depend on the provisions of those schemes.
Future pension rates will be at the mercy of employers who take over subsidiaries of the Scottish Bus Group. In the main, they will be private sector employers operating in a free market and looking to secure an edge over their competitors. The Minister will find it difficult to convince me that the new employers' priority will be to match the existing and future pension rights of STG employees.
What will happen when the existing scheme is abolished? What will happen to surpluses from TOPS? Again, that matter was debated in Committee as the Minister said, after remaining entitlements had been secured, using the surpluses which still remained from TOPS, if any surpluses are left in addition,

Surpluses cannot be transferred to a purchaser. They would go to the Consolidated Fund."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 14 February 1989; c. 354.]
The Minister used the word "cannot", but there is no such thing when one is dealing with Her Majesty's Government or Parliament. This is a sovereign Parliament, and it can decide anything that it likes. The Minister meant that any surpluses will not be transferred to pensioners because that is what the Government desire. The Minister is saying that the Government will take from pensioners what is currently theirs by right. That means that, in effect, the Bill will steal from pensioners what is their due.
In Committee, the Minister tried to argue that that was because the Scottish Transport Group and employers had contributed towards the pension scheme and that, by right, it was the Government's money. Of course, the employers contributed to the TOPS scheme on the basis that such contributions would fund the pension rights of their employees. The Minister is backing away from the commitment that the Scottish Transport Group and the Government gave, and is now saying that the money must go back into the Treasury's coffers. We hear that the Treasury's coffers are already bloated with a £15,000 million surplus which is to be used in the next Budget to line the pockets of the Government's private sector friends.
The Minister suggested also that the technical arrangements for preserving pension rights will be straightforward. He suggested two scenarios. First, any worker may have a transfer value of past entitlements paid into the new scheme offered by the new private owner. Secondly, if a worker does not want that to happen, sufficient funds may be transferred to a commercial company to enable it to continue to pay pension entitlements, including index linking. Either way, the schemes will no longer be underpinned by a publicly owned company and backed by the Government. Pension arrangements will be wholly in the private sector.
What will happen in the event of a catastrophe—for example, if a commercial company goes bust or the new pension scheme collapses? What will be the Government's commitment to past pension rights? Will the Government intervene to ensure that any pensioners who are affected will have their pension rights secured by her Majesty's Government in the event of a collapse of a commercial company or the new pension scheme?
The Minister claims also that the future of existing schemes is a matter for trustees and their members. In the case of TOPS that would mean the management committee—whether seven or 10—and more than 10,000 members. The Minister said that changes might be made by the trustees only with the approval of the Scottish Transport Group board and also with the approval of those voting at a meeting of members of the scheme. Exactly what arrangements have been put in place for more than 10,000 members to vote on proposals suggested by the STG management board?
The Minister also said that the Scottish Transport Group intends to meet with the trade unions to discuss pension arrangements. We will finalise the question about pensions even before the meeting takes place. What is the point of that meeting taking place when we are deciding the configuration of any pension settlement? The Bill will soon pass through the House and go to the House of Lords. After that meeting with the trade unions, the House


will then meet to consider the proposed changes to protect the members' interests on privatisation. I am told that there is to be a meeting between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Transport and General Workers Union as soon as it is practicable.
What is the point of the STG board, the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Minister meeting the Transport and General Workers Union? What is the point of meeting to discuss pension arrangements when hon. Members are deciding what the pension arrangements are to be? The Minister will have to tell me what he will discuss with the trade unions. More important, if the trade unions negotiate important concessions with the board, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister himself, will they be incorporated into the legislation before it is enacted, or will the meetings be a complete waste of time?
The Minister has already made proposals about future arrangements. He said that the Scottish transport scheme should be wound up and that there should be a transitional period to ensure continuity of pension provision and that employees are to be allowed to remain in TOPS for a limited period. He did not spell out what was meant by a limited period, but he will have to tell hon. Members how long employees will be covered by TOPS before the Minister winds it up and what chance employees or their representatives will have to influence the outcome of negotiations on the way in which the scheme is to be wound up.
The Minister referred to Caledonian MacBrayne. He said that the workers who remained in the public sector with CalMac were assured continuity of pension provision and that their pension arrangements would be unaffected. If that is the case for 50 per cent. of CalMac employees who remain in the public sector, why cannot it be the case with the rest who will be transferred to the private sector? Why do they have to be the victims of the Government's dogma? Why are they to be denied any chance of having future pension rights secured under new clause 4 and amendment No. 17?
The Secretary of State for Scotland has statutory powers to make pension orders in relation to the STG. He has never used those powers. Clause 13 provides, as a cautionary measure, for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make such orders in relation to a privatised subsidiary in order to safeguard existing pension rights. That power enables the Secretary of State to intervene in the private sector and, in a sense, to discriminate against one particular group of private sector companies—those which take over one of the STG subsidiaries. I accept that that is fair. The price to pay for picking up the public asset should be respect for the pension rights of the public company employees. Why cannot the price also be to guarantee the future pension rights of the workers who happen to work in the public company?
I am sure that when the Minister speaks he will say that one cannot discriminate against one group of private sector employers. But he is already doing that in clause 13, so the principle is already there. It is just that he will not apply it to future pension rights because he is not in the least interested in defending workers' pension rights.
In Committee the Minister said that the Secretary of State will see clearly from the disposal programme whether pension arrangements are a key factor and will take that into account before he makes a decision. It seems that the Secretary of State will seek to safeguard the existing pension rights of those who work in the subsidiaries by

looking closely at the buy-out proposals and that he will not favour any buy-out proposal which does not give some future security of pension rights to the workers who will be affected.
The Minister will not spell out what the Secretary of State is likely to find satisfactory. Are the standards which the Secretary of State will accept as sufficient to allow a buy-out proposal to go ahead those of TOPS or the standards of schemes run by Stagecoach and other private sector operators? The Minister has a responsibility to spell that out. Throughout our Committee proceedings he ran away from protecting the pension rights of STG workers.
The real problem is that there is no democracy in Scotland. No one in Scotland voted for this measure. It is being imposed on Scotland and, more important, on the workers who, with the rest of the Scottish people, voted overwhelmingly against the Government. They do not want the Bill, privatisation or to lose their pension rights. Yet they have no recourse because of the flawed structure of this United Kingdom Parliament. If the Minister wants to retain this unitary Parliament, he had better start looking at the ways in which he can secure the rights of the people affected. He is selling out the workers' rights and, by doing so, the future of any United Kingdom Parliament.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I am happy to respond. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) asked how the TOPS management committee was made up. It consists, as the notes on clauses state, of four management representatives and three trade union representatives. The scheme is vested in individual trustees.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) was correct in suggesting that there are powers under clause 12 if future arrangements are inadequate. If future arrangements were inadequate, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State would undoubtedly use those powers. Pensions for employees of the Scottish Transport Group, with the exception of some Caledonian MacBrayne employees, are provided for by the group's pension schemes.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East asked about CalMac employees. He is correct that 50 per cent. of CalMac staff do not belong to the STG schemes, but are covered by the Merchant Navy officers' pension fund, the Merchant Navy ratings' pension fund and British Rail funds. The pensions of staff in those funds will be unaffected by the Bill. I am glad to confirm that fact.

Mr. McAllion: As 50 per cent. do not belong to TOPS, by definition 50 per cent. do. Will the Minister spell out exactly how pension rights will be affected? Will their rights be transferred to a commercial company or will some other arrangement be made through the Government or CalMac?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to go into more detail, I shall do so. When the subsidiaries are transferred to the private sector it will be for the new companies to make pension arrangements for employees. The existing pension arrangements will continue for a transitional period. Accrued rights under the existing schemes at the date of an employee's transfer


to a new scheme will be fully protected. New pension arrangements will be made for CalMac employees in the STG scheme on broadly the same terms as they currently enjoy. Obviously, the STG pension schemes will be wound up.

Mr. McAllion: The Minister said that arrangements would be made "on broadly the same terms" for existing CalMac employees who are in TOPS. Exactly what does that mean? Will any of their existing rights be taken from them under the new arrangements?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is expected that the pension arrangements consequent upon privatisation will be made by those responsible for the schemes, without the need for any intervention by the Secretary of State. I am absolutely confident that in this case the 50 per cent. of CalMac staff who do not belong to STG schemes will be unaffected by the Bill. As for the remainder, I can only repeat what I have already said: the schemes will be on broadly the same terms as are currently enjoyed. I cannot envisage what the circumstances will be in 20 years' time.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: Will the Minister give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should like to develop the next point.
It will be for the privatised companies in due course to establish pensions arrangements for their employees. The terms of such arrangements may be different from those provided by the existing STG schemes. When making bids, prospective purchasers will be asked to state their proposals for pensions arrangements and these will be taken into account in assessing bids. There are reserve powers in the Bill to make pensions orders if satisfactory pensions arrangements are not provided by any of the privatised companies.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East asked about the purpose of the meetings that will take place with the trade unions. Obviously, the purpose is to ensure that the best possible pensions arrangements are reached. The Secretary of State must approve each individual sale. The bids that prospective purchasers make and the outline of their proposals will be taken carefully into account.
The future of the STG schemes is a matter for the trustees and members of the schemes. Subject to the necessary amendments being made to the provisions of the schemes, they will continue for a transitional period after privatisation to provide for continuity of pension provisions and allow time for the privatised company to make new arrangements. The transitional period for a company will begin when it is privatised and will be at least six months and up to 16 months. During that period employees will be able to remain members of their STG scheme. They will be able to opt to have a transfer value paid into their new pension scheme at the end of the transitional period or to have their accrued pension rights in their STG scheme frozen to come into payment when they retire. Any such deferred pensions entitlement will be fully protected in accordance with the provisions of the appropriate STG scheme, both as regards the calculation of the pension to be paid at the time of retirement and

provision for future increases. Deferred pension entitlements for employees who have left the STG or who leave prior to privatisation will be similarly protected.

Mr. McAllion: The period of between six and 16 months during which employees will be allowed to remain in the TOPS is to enable trade union representatives and the new employers to negotiate new pension arrangements. What happens if they fail to reach agreement? Will the period be extended, or will the trade union be almost forced to concede what the employers want at the end of 16 months?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have been careful not to lay down specific periods for the bids to come in, because, as I have said many times, it may take longer for some management-employee buy-outs to be lodged than others. But I can tell the hon. Gentleman that sufficient time will be given to take all such considerations properly into account.
The new pension arrangements will need to be established for the 50 per cent. of CalMac employees who are currently members of the STG pension schemes. They will provide for pensions on the same terms as are currently enjoyed. Retired STG employees and those retiring before privatisation or before the end of any transitional period will have their pensions provision fully secured so that they will receive the same pensions as they would have received from the Scottish Transport Group.
It would not be appropriate to make it a condition of sale, as is required by new clause 4, that new companies should participate in the existing pension scheme. The simple reason is that the provision of pension arrangements is a matter for those companies. However, prospective purchasers will be asked to declare their intentions when making bids, and that information will be taken into account when assessing bids. Should a company, after privatisation, fail to establish satsfactory pension arrangements, we would consider using the reserve powers in clause 12 to make pensions orders.

Mr. McAvoy: If any bid included a reduction of employees' pension rights, may we have a firm commitment from the Minister that the Government would not give that bid the go-ahead?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: To be frank, I do not envisage a management-employee buy-out team making a bid that would reduce pension rights. I have made the position clear. All relevant circumstances will be taken into account when bids are made, and pension provision will be a key subject for the Secretary of State to consider. As I said, the Secretary of State must approve each sale.

Mr. Wilson: The Minister cannot be allowed to get away with that. He knows as well as we do that there is no guarantee that all the purchases will be made by buy-out teams which, as he said, may reasonably not be expected to reduce the quality of their pension schemes. But the scale of the buy-outs might make it more difficult to maintain that position.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: All relevant circumstances will be taken into account, and those extremely important facts will be considered when bids are made. In that connection, clause 12 is an important insurance policy if adequate arrangements are not made.
On amendment No. 17, I have already explained to the hon. Member for Dundee, East that accrued entitlements will be protected. Employees will be able to opt for a transfer value or to have their accrued pension entitlements converted into deferred pensions which will be calculated in accordance with the provisions of the STG schemes. Future pensions are a matter for the new companies, and it would be surprising if they did not wish to secure pension arrangements that are satisfactory to their employees in the interests of attracting and retaining a motivated staff. I ask hon. Members to vote against amendment No. 17.

Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Should you not suspend the sitting until there is someone on the Tory Benches who is capable of walking over and picking up the notes to the Minister?

Mr. Sydney Chapman: Am I not capable?

Mr. Wilson: I thought that the hon. Gentleman, as a Government Whip, would have to maintain his position on the Bench. There is no one else on the Tory Benches, so perhaps we should give them time to get someone in to act as the Minister's runner.

Mr. Speaker: It is well known that when the Benches are empty there is much else going on in the House.

Mr. McAllion: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has already spoken once. He cannot speak again.

Mr. McAllion: I had not realised that the Minister had finished speaking.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am happy to try to answer a few more hon. Members' queries.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East asked how a small scheme can match a large scheme. There is no reason in principle why a small firm should not make pension provision on the same scale as a large employer. But a small company may not set up and run its own scheme. It may arrange its pensions through an insurance company or a pensions firm. The hon. Gentleman asked what would happen if a pension scheme collapsed. It is for employers to set up suitable pension arrangements for their employees. A satisfactory pension scheme would be a funded scheme vested in the trustees under which, if an employer went out of business, employees' accrued entitlements would be safeguarded.

Mr. McAllion: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. He said that the reserve powers to make pension orders would be used to secure existing pension rights if a subsidiary did not take the steps that, the Secretary of State considered appropriate to secure the pension rights of its employees. What happens if a company is sold to one private sector owner but is transferred to another within a year? Would the reserve powers still be available to the Secretary of State at the second or third sale?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: To the best of my knowledge, the answer is yes. The reserve powers are extremely important, and if grossly inadequate provision were made for pensions I would expect my right hon. and learned Friend to use them.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: I was disappointed by the Minister's reply. It was full of even more weasel and imprecise words than usual. His speech was full of phrases such as, "All relevant circumstances will be taken into consideration"; "I am confident that" such and such a thing will not happen; "I do not envisage" that this will occur; "I fully realise that such may be the case"; "These will be taken into consideration"; "'The means will be satisfactory"; and "This will be taken into account." I was left wondering exactly what he meant, and I am not sure whether the Minister realised what he 'was trying to say. What he did not give in response to the many points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) were absolute guarantees arid reassurance for the people who work for the Scottish Transport Group.
I hope that the Minister will go away to think about the matter and come back with some guarantees on the points that have been made. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East, the Minister said that the transitional arrangements will take between six and 16 months. He was rather vague about that, so my hon. Friend asked him more questions. Having said that he would be specific about six to 16 months, the Minister then said that he did not wish to use specific time periods when discussing the matter. What is the magic about the period chosen?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Standing Committee, so he may be unaware that the disposal programme will start in the autumn and will continue for a considerable time. A crucial factor upon which it will depend is the speed at which management-employee buy-out teams can mount bids. Their interests will have to be taken into account.

Mr. Galbraith: Perhaps, not being a classics or English scholar, I have trouble putting my words into a form that the Minister can understand. 1 was trying to ask what was so specific about the period of 16 months. I admit that I was not on the Committee and that I am on a steeply rising part of the learning curve, but I shall reach the asymptote fairly soon. May I ask what is wrong with 15 months or 17 months?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We consider a period of between six and 16 months altogether feasible. It seems reasonable to assume that the arrangements could be completed effectively within that time.

Mr. Galbraith: I do not 'wish to tease the Minister further. He is obviously in considerable difficulty, and as his PPS, the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is not yet here to assist him, I shall pass over the matter of the transitional period.
The Minister talked about the protection of pension rights. May we take it that that protection is absolute within the period of six to 16 months, although it may not be absolute outwith that period?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Lord James Douglas-Hamilton indicated assent.

Mr. McAllion: Perhaps, through my hon. Friend. I could try to obtain some sympathy. The Minister did riot answer me earlier when I tried to raise a point about the period of between six and 16 months. During that period the privatised company must come forward with a


proposal that the Secretary of State can accept, but included in the proposal must be an agreement between the trade unions and the employer about pension arrangements. If such an agreement cannot be reached within 16 months, must the trade unions collapse and accept whatever the employer insists on?

Mr. Galbraith: That is the crux. I was on the point of asking the Minister the same question. He tried to fudge the issue earlier by saying that he did not want to specify periods. Must this period last until an agreement is reached by both parties, or will it be a finite period at the end of which the unions must accept the propositions put forward by their employers? Would the Minister like to clarify that now, or would he prefer to wait for his PPS?

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: rose—

Mr. Galbraith: I will certainly give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who looks like a bus conductor in that outfit.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: The hon. Gentleman asked what was so magical about the number 16. If he cares to count the number of persons in the Chamber, including you, Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means and his Clerk, he will find that there are 16.

Mr. Galbraith: That was an excellent contribution. I actually understood what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, which is unusual, although I do not think that it contributed much to the debate.
Can the transitional period be extended for negotiation between union and employer? I shall be pleased to give way if the Minister wishes to provide some reassurance on the matter, but it appears that he does not wish to do so.
The question of retaining a national scheme rather than creating smaller schemes has already been touched on. I too have a Scottish Transport Group company in my constituency—Kelvin Scottish. Retaining a national scheme with 10,000 members, rather than creating a smaller one like the one on Tayside, would benefit all employees.
The Minister did not give a clear response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East. What methods does he propose for consultation about transitional arrangements and pension schemes? We require a much more detailed answer before we can reassure those involved.
Pension schemes are vital to many of our constituents, and I should have thought that they would be of equal importance to Conservative Members in Scotland, who may soon have to look to their own pension schemes—although the Minister has reassured me that he may have other arrangements. That is why we are pursuing the matter in detail, particularly the transitional arrangements.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman has raised a relevant point. If difficulties arose in a specific case, extending the 16-month period would certainly be considered. The period may start at different times for different companies. It will start on the date of a company's privatisation and will last for at least six months, to ensure continuity of pension arrangements for employees, and up to 16 months, depending on the

circumstances of the company concerned. It is thought that 16 months should provide sufficient time for new pension arrangements to be set up, but if difficulties arose the powers in clause 12 would be available to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Galbraith: The Minister has certainly gone some way towards clarifying the position, and it would not be proper for me to be mean-spirited. His answer, however, was infected with the same problem of vague wording that has featured in all his replies. He says that the transitional period may be extended. Why can he not say that it will be extended? The Minister shakes his head. But who will decide whether the period "may" be extended? Will it be the Minister, the Secretary of State, the employers, the trade unions or some quango in which failed Tory Members of Parliament serve on inflated salaries? This is not merely a matter of semantics. Can the Minister not say "will" rather than "may"? Can he explain the difference between the two? Why cannot he be more specific?

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 5

SCOTTISH BUS PASSENGERS' CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

'(1) There shall be established a body to be called the Scottish Bus Passengers' Consultative Committee,—
(2) It shall be the duty of the Scottish Bus Passengers' Consultative Committee

(a) to monitor the effects of this Act on bus passengers in Scotland; and
(b) to make recommendations to bus operators and the Secretary of State regarding the effects of this Act on bus passengers in Scotland.

(3) The Secretary of State shall have the power to direct bus operators operating undertakings disposed of under this Act to implement any recommendations of the Scottish Bus Passengers' Consultative Committee.
(4) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament proposals for the establishment and composition of the Scottish Bus Passengers' Consultative Committee.'.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Wilson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this, we may take the following amendments: No. 1, in clause 1, page 2, line 20 after 'Group', insert
'and representatives of consumer interests'.
No. 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 24, at end insert
'in the interests of the transport user'.
No. 12, in page 2, line 29, at end insert
'In so doing he shall give consideration to the interests of employees and the travelling public'.
No. 14, in clause 3, page 3, line 11, after 'State', insert
'and to the interests of the Transport Users Consultative Committee'.

Mr. Wilson: The new clause and amendments are primarily concerned with consumer interests. They assert the rights of those who use bus services to some form of protection and a place to go if their interests are not properly safeguarded.
New clause 5 proposes the establishment of a body, to be called the Scottish bus passengers' consultative committee, to monitor the effects of the legislation on passengers and to make recommendations to bus operators and the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State would have power to direct operators who are the beneficiaries of disposals under the legislation to


implement any of the committee's recommendations, and would lay before Parliament proposals for the establishment of composition of the committee. We are suggesting the establishment of what might be referred to in shorthand as "Ofbus", along the lines of Oftel and Ofgas. It is not short for "Come on, get off the bus"!
The proposal has a parallel in a new clause tabled in Committee by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) proposing that bus interests should come under the Scottish transport users consultative committee, as rail and ferry interests do at present.
I looked up just now to acknowledge the hon. Member for Dumfries, hut, of course, it was a futile gesture because, once again, there is not a solitary Conservative member of the Standing Committee present other than the Minister and the Whip. Perhaps it is not surprising that the hon. Members for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) and for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) and those other hon. Members from other exotic places who served with us would not find it particularly attractive to participate in further debates on the Bill today. It is remarkable, however, that not a single Tory Member who represents Scotland has found it worthwhile to be here. We are sure that just as those Members' performance in the Committee will be noted, so their performance in the House today will be noted. Four English Tory Members were members of the Committee considering the Bill and we look forward with interest to see whether that number will rise to seven when we consider the Scottish education Bill because the fidelity of the hon. Member for Dumfries and the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) cannot he relied upon.
The concern about the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group and its implications for its 10,000 workers felt on the Conservative Benches is demonstrated by the fact that no Back-Bench Conservative Member is present today. The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) took one look and retired whence he came. He made an important intervention when he counted the number of people present. It is perhaps surprising that he did not count and find that he had double the actual number present, but he, too, has departed.
The consumer interests that we wish to protect through the new clause and the associated amendments are many and varied. We have the support of every consumer body and of everyone who studied the bus privatisation and deregulation that took place in England and Wales. Those studies reached the conclusion that, whatever else is served by privatisation and deregulation, it is not the interests of the consumer. The Scottish Consumer Council commissioned a report on the impact of deregulation and, in passing, it commented on the implications once privatisation took place. That study clearly demonstrated that there were no proven benefits for consumers and that if such benefits were to be achieved they must be written into legislation. Similarly, the Transport 2000 group, which has done a great deal of work on this matter, has discovered beyond doubt that the interests of consumers in England and Wales have not been protected by privatisation.
The Scottish Consumer Council has criticised Scottish bus services generally for being unsatisfactory, particularly in providing timetables and other information, especially at bus stops. At the Consumer Congress conference held in July 1988 a resolution was passed calling for an enforceable code of good practice for the operation and

provision of public transport. That code was to be developed to ensure that public transport met the needs of all passengers, including the disabled and that it worked efficiently in the consumers' interest.
The Consumer Congress called for a working party to draft a code of good practice and it was intended that that working party should make use of the information generated by the 1988 transport workshop, whose discussions were reported to the congress. The idea was that there should be a checklist of consumer interests. The Consumer Congress was anxious to introduce good practices to cover such things as access, choice, information, safety and redress. We would expect regulations to be drawn up under those headings in the hope that the privatised companies would be obliged to act upon them.
As in so many other instances, we, at least, are not prepared to rely upon hope. We want something written into the Bill that makes it likely that some of the consumer safeguards will become a reality. We should not have to rely on the private sector to assist in providing facilities, especially as currently in many cases it does not provide such facilities. If facilities were not provided or routes were withdrawn or changed at short notice consumers should have a statutory right to go to a statutory body to seek redress. That body should be created by the Bill.
4.45 pm
As I said in Committee, the lack of redress in terms of the activities of bus companies compared to the activities of rail or ferry operators represents a great anomaly. If British Rail wants to withdraw a service it must make an application to do so, which is considered, and the same thing applies to ferry services. Once again, I remind the Minister of the problems into which the Government ran when they first tried to dip their toes in the water of ferry privatisation with the Gourock-Dunoon service. That was a classic example of the consumers of transport services having their say and, as a result of the strength of public opinion—assisted by the process of a public inquiry carried out by the Scottish transport users consultative committee—forcing a reversal of Government policy. Consumers can have their say regarding ferry services, and, theoretically, regarding rail services, but the anomaly is that they have no say regarding bus services. There is no regulatory body to which people can go to subject the operators' proposals to the necessary scrutiny in the public interest, particularly in the consumers' interest.
Protection is needed for the disabled—their needs are a good reason for a code of conduct to exist—and it should be statutorily enforceable. In Committee, we discussed the report of the disabled persons transport advisory committee many times. There was general agreement that the recommendations put forward in that report were excellent, compassionate and necessary to protect the interests of the disabled. If those recommendations were sensitively applied they would greatly enhance the prospects and ability of disabled people to enjoy the benefits of public transport by travelling wherever bus routes may take them. Currently, physically disabled people—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I belive that the hon. Gentleman is talking about what might have been within the scope of new clause 6 had Mr.


Speaker selected it. He has not done so and, therefore, it would be out of order for the hon. Gentleman to pursue his present line of argument under this new clause

Mr. Wilson: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I assure you that I am talking about the disabled only in terms of the general need for consumer protection, which is encompassed in new clause 5.
The Scottish bus passengers consultative committee proposed in new clause 5 would consider the needs of the disabled if representations were made to it. Provisions for the disabled should also be contained in the code of conduct that we have asked to be drawn up. In view of what you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall keep my remarks on this subject brief but I hope that other hon. Members will also refer to the disabled persons transport advisory committee report that I mentioned.
In Committee when we discussed the needs of the disabled and the need for a code of good practice, the Minister's response, as it was to everything else to do with consumer interest, was "It will be all right on the night". The Minister used such phrases as "We hope", "We will advise", or "We will suggest" that private operators should take account of the consumer interest. The Scottish Consumer Council, Transport 2000, BusWatch and so on have urged that consumer interests should be statutorily enforceable by the Bill, but the Minister has rejected such recommendations. On the basis of the English experience of privatisation, it is clear that unless such provisions are written into the Bill, consumer interests will not be considered by the bus companies. Currently, there is no source of redress to which the travelling public can go.
In Committee the alternative proposal advanced by the hon. Member for Dumfries was for the powers of the Scottish transport users consultative committee to be extended. At that time the hon. Gentleman expressed the hope that between then and Report his hon. Friend the Minister would look into the matter, talk to his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and decide that it was more logical to have one body looking after all transport issues in Scotland. As the hon. Member for Dumfries is not in the Chamber to press his point, I shall charitably do it for him. Will the Minister tell us whether any such discussions have taken place and, if so, what were the conclusions? Because of privatisation, a separate regulatory consumer body is desirable, but we certainly regard the extension of bus powers to the Scottish transport users consultative committee as better than nothing.

Mrs. Ray Michie: I support the new clause because it is essential for bus users to have their interests protected. I hope that the Minister will make clear what happened to the idea of his hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) about extending the remit of the Scottish transport users consultative committee to include buses. I am not sure why the Minister would not take that on board. Had that something to do with the traffic commissioners or with the Department of Trade and Industry? If so, it is deplorable because I should prefer the remit to be allocated, as it were, by the Secretary of State for Scotland or by the Minister.
I agree with the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) that it is regrettable that there is no umbrella

body to oversee all modes of transport in Scotland. Many journeys contain an element of bus travel and it is essential that bus, ferry, train and even air services should be co-ordinated to give the best possible connections to passengers whose journeys require the use of more than one form of transport.
Many of the remote areas of Scotland have aging populations and many such people do not have the use of cars. In Committee we talked about the needs of women returning home late at night and of the problems encountered by mothers with young children transferring from one mode of transport to another. As I say, we need an integrated service.

Mr. McAvoy: Does the hon. Lady agree that the Scottish Consumer Council's recommendations should apply to the movement of the management headquarters of a particular industry to another location?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was listening carefully to the hon. Lady before the hon. Gentleman intervened. I draw to the attention of the House that the new clause deals with a Scottish bus passengers' consultative committee. I hope that hon. Members will confine themselves to talking about bus passengers.

Mrs. Michie: I note your ruling about sticking to the new clause, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I can assure you that I have no intention of straying into the question of the location of the headquarters of Caledonian MacBrayne.
I reiterate that we should have a Scottish bus passengers' consultative committee and I am trying to relate the new clause to my belief that we should have an overall consultative committee. It would be much more sensible to have a body responsible for surveying all transport activity in Scotland because there is no organisation with responsibility for doing that. We shall have the Scottish TUCC and if the Minister accepts the new clause we shall have another body responsible for the buses. The users of Scotland's buses should be able to turn to one body which oversees the other modes of transport. Perhaps that role for the Scottish TUCC is being rejected because on many occasions it has been reactive rather than taking the initiative.
Will the Minister explain why we do not have an overall monitoring system to ensure that transport users get value for money and that there is a proper service, especially for those in rural areas? If the Minister cannot answer that, I shall support the clause.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I fully support the new clause and the related amendments. The changes that are taking place, especially in relation to bus passengers, are wide and varied and are becoming more important as each week goes by. The deregulation of buses has led to a great diminution in the service, especially at weekends and at night when people in rural and city areas feel isolated.
The use of buses is becoming even more important in relation to rail transport. No doubt, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will wonder how rail transport could relate to the Scottish bus passengers' consultative committee. It is precisely because of Government policy. It will be within the memory of the House—although the memories of Conservative Membes are probably as blank as Conservative Benches—that about five and a half years ago the right hon. Member for Cirencester and


Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), when he was the Secretary of State for Transport, implemented a very novel idea. It was about the relationship between the Government and the transport industries and the Government and the rail industry in particular.
The right hon. Gentleman started the process of the three-year letters of intent in which the relationship between the Government and British Rail was clearly set out. It is well known that I disliked what was in the first three-year letter of intent, but I wholly approved of the principle. It is worth repeating that it stripped for ever from folklore the idea that British Rail was wholly independent and could do what it liked, that the Government had no connection with it and were not concerned in the day-to-day running of its affairs, and that there was a chasm between British Rail and the Government. The right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury made clear that British Rail did what it was told. Certainly there is much discussion and bargaining about how much money is available, hut, essentially, British Rail does what it is told.
The second three-year letter of intent was provided by the right hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) who is now the Secretary of State for Social Security. An important part of that letter which impinges directly on new clause 5, and makes it essential that the new clause is accepted, was that the right hon. Gentleman said that before British Rail made any investment plans for rural areas it should consider bus substitution. It is perfectly clear what that meant. There was to be no investment in lines to help rural passengers, many of whom were denied easy access to hospitals, doctors' surgeries, pharmacies, dental facilities and leisure and recreation. Many of them were also completely cut off from the normal trading conditions that enable people to exercise choice. The Government are keen on people exercising choice when buying the weekly groceries, but such choice is removed from people who live in rural areas and depend on public transport.
The role of the bus becomes much more important if rail services disappear and are to be replaced by bus services. Part of the three-year letter of intent went so far as to say—this is quite astonishing—that for an initial period, which as far as I can recollect was never defined, British Rail should subsidise bus services because buses were being subsitituted for trains. That was a novel concept for the Government to put forward. In some circumstances I would have welcomed such a discussion. If British Rail is under pressure to increase the frequency of its service, there is a case for a co-ordinated transport system operating bus and rail services. If there is a need for transport when it is not convenient to run rail services, or if only a certain number of trains can run on a line because goods trains and passenger services cannot operate at the same time—although perhaps British Rail should be more innovative in its mix of passenger and freight services—perhaps it is a good idea for British Rail and the bus services—as they are today, not as they will be affected by the Bill—to get together.
5 pm
There are many examples of how different services should work together and how passengers' interests would be better served if there were a body to decide whether the bus companies are carrying out their responsibilities. In the village of Portlethen, some 15 miles outside Aberdeen,

the main line station was closed many years ago as it was said to be uneconomic. The nearest main road is three or four miles away, but the buses would not leave the main road to drop passengers at Portlethen village because the bus companies said that it was uneconomic. As the years went by, the village of Portlethen grew, partly due to the oil industry, and became a greater commuter catchment area, and better transport links became vital. After all the years in which we pressed British Rail to open the station and the bus company to allow buses to come down into Portlethen village, when the station was reopened, the bus companies suddenly decided that buses would come down off the main road and start a service to compete with British Rail. That seemed to be nonsense. There were difficulties for British Rail passengers and bus passengers.
While all that agitation was going on a dual carriageway had been built between Aberdeen and Stonehaven. Instead of providing a service when it was most needed, the bus companies and British Rail were persuaded to provide services only when the road network made it less attractive for people to use public transport if private transport was available. In such a situation we would expect the Scottish bus passengers' consultative committee to step in and examine the proposals.
It is difficult enough to persuade publicly owned companies to provide bus services to replace rail services when an element of public subsidy is available, at least in theory if not in practice. As hon. Members who are present know, the way in which transport subsidies and grants are provided in Scotland is quite different from the system in the rest of the country. Transport does not appear as a separate item, but as part of the overall block grant to regional authorities. Therefore, it is difficult to know how much money is being provided, and whether a regional authority is using the money allocated for transport in the block grant for transport matters. That is difficult enough for a publicly owned company with a social responsibility. Whatever anyone might say about private companies, they do not have a social responsilbility. Their responsibility is to make the maximum profit for their owners. Therefore, they will be ruthless in cutting services that do not pay. If they have come to an arrangement with British Rail under the bus substitution programme and they consider that they are not getting enough money, there will be no cosy chats or friendly discussions in the board room; they will be absolutely ruthless and cut the services.
It is fashionable to say that transport has changed dramatically over the past decade or so, and no one would deny that. Of course modes of transport have changed and people's personal choices have widened. There is no doubt that the advent of the motor car and the provision of bet ter roads—although in my part of the world we would argue strongly for road improvement—mean that people exercise greater personal choice. Therefore, it is fair to ask why we are so keen on public transport if all experience over the past decade or so shows a fall in rail and bus passenger services and traffic in rural areas and in cities. Things have changed and unemployment has hit people extremely hard and reduced their ability to buy cars. The Scottish bus passengers' consultative committee would be an excellent way of examining what happens.
In response to the noises we make about services disappearing, cuts in services and increased fares, the Minister might say that we are speculating. He might say, as he constantly says, "Don't worry, the market will provide. It will be taken care of. If there are enough


passengers there will be enough buses, and if there are enough buses there will be enough passengers." That is a nice simple equation, but it does not work. I know that the Minister is a fair-minded man and I fear very much for his future. If the Prime Minister reads the debate in Committee and sees the praise that I heaped on the Minister during those 12 sittings, the Minister will be next for the chop in the reshuffle, and I would not want that to happen to him.
The Minister is a fair-minded man, so he is bound to accept that there are genuine worries. We are not scaremongering. It is too easy to say that the Opposition are just scaremongering and making it all up, and it will not be as bad as we fear. I hope that it will not be as bad as I fear, but experience of the National Bus Company in England and Wales shows that it was worse than we feared. The services were cut so drastically that at the time no one in their right mind would have forecast that they would become so bad.
Without scaremongering, we fear very much for the needs of bus passengers. Not knowing which companies will take over, and not knowing whether they will simply speculate on the available properties, it is essential that there is a back stop. It can do no harm; it can do only good. I do not know why the Minister, having listened to the arguments of my hon. Friends, has not leapt to his feet to say that he accepts the new clause. We could save a lot of time and move on to other things. The Minister ought to accept the new clause. We would be delighted, and I expect that would blight his future even more, but it is essential that we have a mechanism to check on what is happening so that there is information and a body to which people can bring their grievances so that matters are properly set out and, more important, rectified before damage is done.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: The Government are taking us into unknown waters with the changes in the legislation. Who knows what the exact situation will be and what problems will arise as those changes are forced upon the Scottish people who did not want them in the first place? However, it is quite clear that there will be major difficulties for travellers in Scotland. Certainly the first signs from other areas in which the Government have been allowed to carry out such schemes show that there will be considerable problems for transport users when the changes are introduced.
We are entitled to ask who will look after the public interest and consider the problems for individual travellers. The new clause seeks to address that specific problem. A Scottish bus passengers' consultative committee would be one mechanism by which any problems caused by the changes could be examined from the point of view of the users of the transport system in Scotland. At least there would be an assured mechanism which could be guaranteed to represent the interests and needs of travellers. The new clause seeks to give the Committee reasonable duties, and surely seeking to monitor the effects of the legislation is a necessary and useful function for such a committee. We are entitled to ask who will perform that task if there is no consultative committee. What assurances can the Minister give the Scottish travelling public? Who will make the necessary recommendations if problems arise—as they surely will?
A consultative committee would be an assured way of helping the travelling public, but without it the problem will be passed to the Government. In that event, how would they expect to protect the consumer? Before the afternoon is out, I hope that we shall hear from the Minister how the Government propose to do that and how effective his alternative—if it exists—will be.
The new clause will allow a consultative committee to make recommendations to bus operators and to the Secretary of State about the effect of the Act on bus passengers in Scotland. If no such committee is formed, who or what will make those recommendations?
The new clause also seeks to create a fair and reasonble assured mechanism to protect the rights of travellers under the new system. If the Minister cannot reassure us and explain how he intends to achieve those objectives, he should accept our proposals.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: When this legislation was presented to the Chamber some weeks ago, I inquired of the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last attempted to board a bus whilst trying to fold a pushchair, with an infant in one arm and a toddler held by the other hand. I am still waiting for an answer. Since the Ministers presenting this legislation hardly ever travel by bus, the least they can do is to listen to those who do so daily.
I would go further—I am not sure whether my hon. Friends presented such an amendment but it was not called—and ask that such a consultative committee comprise a large number of women bus users. I am sure that the proposers of the new clause would agree with that because women tend to use buses more than men, for two main reasons. First, even if a household owns a car, typically, the car is used by the husband going to work in the morning. The wife, presumably looking after the children, gets about by bus with whatever inconvenience that entails, such as the lack of public transport at less busy periods.
Secondly, since women are generally lower paid than men—earning on average about three-quarters of men's pay—they are less likely to be able to afford cars. This is obviously well known, because car advertisements in glossy magazines are clearly, on the whole, addressed to men, not women, car buyers.
The least that the Government should do when designing the legislation is to address the needs of women bus users. They should think not only of convenience, especially for women who have young children to look after, but of safety. The Government cannot be unaware that women are frightened to travel alone at night in isolated places, to wait in bus depots where no staff are present, or to be dropped off at bus-rail links at isolated railway stations where there is no one to guard them against possible danger.
The point is frequently made that if bus fares were set at a reasonable level, buses would be used more often and public safety would be greater. Conservative Members tend to ignore the dangers for women bus users because there are so few women amongst them—at the moment there are no women at all on the Government Benches. The Government perhaps ignore the need for safety, but many women take it very seriously. Surveys demonstrate that 88 per cent. of women feel that it is unsafe to walk alone on the streets at night, which shows that a great public need is being ignored.
5.15 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) mentioned the needs of disabled passengers, and clearly the Bill should represent the needs of bus users who suffer from any form of physical disability. Those needs are largely ignored. Disabled people find that they have to put a great deal of effort into making various authorities meet their ordinary everyday needs. At this stage, we have an opportunity to ensure that the legislation will allow their voices to be heard through formal channels so that they do not have to resort to the usual practice of writing to the appropriate organisations. Such methods do not give their cause sufficient weight, but a consultative committee would ensure that disabled people have a strong voice in these matters. That should not be a matter of controversy and I hope that the Minister will consider it.

Mr. Thomas Graham: The new clause offers Scottish people the opportunity to have at least some confidence in the Government's attitude to the privatisation of the bus service. We know that the recent privatisation of bus services has led to escalating prices, a lowering of standards and customers' complaints being ignored. That was all in aid of the companies' desperate need to make massive profits.
I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to the call from the Opposition and ensure that when privatisation takes place, the golden opportunity will not be missed to set up the Scottish bus passenger consultative committee, which, we hope, will examine customers' complaints and safeguard their interests. It is obvious that the Government have a chance to consider what they are proposing. If they really mean to improve transport in Scotland, why are they frightened of agreeing to the new clause?
At present, many bus companies operate routes that are subsidised by local authorities. They also run timetables that attempt to meet the needs of the local people. The fare structures have also been closely examined.
I believe that the consultative committee will be able to ensure that bus routes serve local areas and communities. It can also examine timetables to ensure that bus companies operate not only at peak times but at midday or at other times when people wish to travel to doctors, hospitals or services that may be situated in the centres of population in cities and towns.
As the Minister knows, I live in a rural area and if I want to go to hospital I first have to go to Paisley. What a disaster it would be if the local bus company decided not to run bus services after about 3 o'clock in the afternoon. What would happen to the elderly and the disabled who are invariably given appointments at off-peak times? Most doctors and consultants in hospitals try to make appointments for people in work at a time when they will not lose too much money.
Correct timetabling in rural areas is essential to ensure that people get to work on time, and the consultative committee could examine such matters. The fare structure is also extremely important. The Government talk about competition, but what chance is there for competition in rural areas where there is perhaps only one bus every hour, or every two or three hours? Passengers have a gun at their head and are told they must pay a certain amount. If they do not, they cannot travel. Such a system punishes the

elderly and the unemployed who are on fixed incomes, and the disabled who, we all know, live well below the poverty level.
A consultative committee could also investigate the quality of the buses. I hope that privatisation will not lead to the kind of things that happened after deregulation. Some buses are hardly fit for the road. I am not alleging that they are mechanically unsafe, but when people go to parties or dances they find that some of the buses are not clean and up to the standard that they had come to expect when buses were under local authority control. Some buses are absolutely filthy. They are not kept thoroughly clean, as they were when they were looked after by the local authorities. Since deregulation, buses are only trying to get from A to B as fast as possible in order to make as much profit as possible. The Bill could lead to exactly the same kind of problem. A consultative committee could investigate the quality of buses.
The Minister knows of my concern about the attitude of this Government and previous Governments and that of the people of Britain towards the disabled. We treat them lamentably. The new clause would provide a golden opportunity for the consultative committee to ensure that bus companies carry out recommendations that would ensure that the elderly and the disabled can travel on buses in Scotland in comparative safety. It could also consider what type of adaptations and timetables should be introduced to meet the needs of the disabled.
The Minister has been praised in the debate. He has been described as a caring individual. I believe that he is. The new clause provides him with an opportunity to prove that he is a caring individual. It is clear, however, that the Minister has been browbeaten by his superiors who have said to him, "No, Minister, you will not look after the needs of the elderly, the disabled and the unemployed. You will look after the fast buck merchants who are waiting to come in to steal and cheat and to deal in a shoddy, grasping way with bus companies that have been made successful by the local authorities."
The Minister has an opportunity to stand up and be counted by the travelling, suffering public in Scotland. The new clause provides him with an opportunity to ensure that Scottish people are provided with a consultative committee of men and women who will look after the public's interests and recommend to bus operators what they ought to do to improve services. If the bus operators do not accept its recommendations, the consultative committee should be able to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to take action. I ask the Minister to support the new clause. It would provide the people of Scotland with at least the hope that after privatisation they will have decent bus services. Otherwise, I am convinced that bus services in Scotland will continue to deteriorate.

Mr. McAllion: I support the establishment of the kind of body that is outlined in new clause 5. I am sure that all 62 Opposition Members with Scottish constituencies support the establishment of a Scottish bus passengers' consultative committee. I suspect that a number of Conservative Members support the establishment of such a committee—most likely the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and the hon. Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang). If they were here, I am sure that they would support new clause 5. The


reason that they are not here is that they feel that they would have to vote for new clause 5 if they were here, so they have absented themselves from the debate.
The heart of new clause 5 is subsection (2). It refers to the duty being placed on the new committee
"(a) to monitor the effects of this Act on bus passengers in Scotland; and
(b) to make recommendations to bus operators and the Secretary of State regarding the effects of this Act on bus passengers in Scotland."
If we examine the provisions of the Bill, we realise that there is a great need for such a committee to protect the interests of bus users.
Clause 2 sets out the objectives of disposal. They are to promote competition, to bring private sector bus operators into the market and put them in charge of what are now public sector subsidiaries. The changes would have a detrimental effect on bus passengers. Control of subsidiary companies could pass into the hands of an owner who is outwith the local area. Nothing in the Bill guarantees that management and employee bids will be successful. Somebody could come along from outwith the region, or even from outwith Scotland or the United Kingdom, and take over a bus company.
If that happened, there could be a number of consequences. There could be asset stripping, with the new owner selling bus stations for a quick profit. The result would be a deterioration of services in all the ways that my hon. Friends have pointed out—the cleanliness of the buses, the regularity of services and the kind of facilities that are made available to the unemployed, women, the elderly and the disabled.
It is important to establish a committee to monitor these matters, because of what has happened since the deregulation of bus services in Scotland in 1985. Under the Act, regional councils no longer have the power to co-ordinate bus services in their area, with the result that gaps have begun to open up in the bus network throughout Scotland. For example, in Dundee the Tayside Public Transport Company, which is still owned by the regional council, has been forced, under the provisions of the 1985 Act, to alter some of the services and make them commercial. The No. 17 service to Whitfield in Dundee used to operate a two-way pattern which suited everyone; because of cross-subsidy, the public transport company was able to maintain that service. However, the pattern of service has had to be changed to make the service commercial and profitable. The bus, therefore, no longer goes along Summerfield terrace, with the result that 50 old-age pensioners have had to draw up a petition to try to persuade the public transport company to reinstate the two-way pattern.
However, the company's hands are tied because the Government insist that the main consideration must be that bus services are commercially profitable. Consequently, the 50 old-age pensioners have a 10-minute walk to catch the local bus, whereas previously they could catch it near their front door. That is the reality of Government interference in the way that bus networks are run in Scotland. It is important, therefore, that there should be a committee, with consumer representatives on it, that can give advice to, and be consulted by, the Government. It is important that it should also have teeth.
Subsection (3) of the new clause says:

The Secretary of State shall have the power to direct bus operators operating undertakings disposed of under this Act to implement any recommendations of the Scottish Bus Passengers' Consultative Committee.
That is a very important subsection, because the Scottish transport users consultative committee and the disabled persons transport advisory committee have no such powers. The Government promised to consult the disabled persons transport advisory committee on the introduction of new regulations that would result in better standards of accessibility to buses for the handicapped and the disabled. The Government consult that committee and specifications for both new and existing buses are laid down, but nobody is under any obligation to do anything about them.
Under the Transport Act 1985, local authorities had a duty to pay regard to the transport needs of the elderly and the disabled, but merely having to pay regard to those needs does not mean that anything has to be done about the specifications that have been laid down by the disabled persons transport advisory committee. No duty is laid on the majority of commercial operators to pay any attention to the specifications. The recommended specification published by the disabled persons transport advisory committee says:
The implementation of this Specification rests on the goodwill that is needed towards those passengers for whom these features cater".
That refers to features such as route numbers, destination displays and entrance and exit steps for the disabled. They have to rely on the Government's goodwill.
In Committee, the Government said nothing that suggested that such a change will be made. The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) trapped the Minister on that point. He asked him whether the bus specification, as laid down by the disabled persons transport advisory committee, would be a requirement in the disposal programme and whether the bus companies that tender will need to give the Minister an answer. The hon. Member said that he welcomed the Minister's positive response. In fact, what the Minister said was that it would be the general policy under the disposal programme.
So the Minister has to be very clear, when he comes to the Dispatch Box, on whether any company applying to take over STG subsidiaries will be required to take on board the specifications laid down by the disabled persons transport advisory committee. If he says yes, he will have to go further. It is not just a question of the disabled; all the other bus users have to be taken into account. Also, the Minister must take these powers not just for the privatised subsidiaries but for all the bus operators currently providing services in Scotland. The only means he has of doing that is by accepting new clause 5. He will have to come up with very convincing arguments to persuade any hon. Member that he cannot accept it, but it is framed in the most uncontentious way anyone could imagine.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: A considerable number of points have been raised. The hon. Members for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) raised the question of the procedures to be adopted if a bus service is withdrawn. Obviously, if a bus service is withdrawn the local authority can replace it with a subsidised service and thus fill any gap. I should make it absolutely clear that since deregulation there has been a


very considerable increase in mileage served by buses both north and south of the border. In Scotland the increase in vehicle kilometres has followed a pattern very similar to that which resulted from deregulation in England. The figures for Scotland were 285 million vehicle kilometres in 1985–86, 302 million vehicle kilometres, in 1986–87, and 329 million vehicle kilometres in 1987–88.
Of course, as hon. Members have suggested, travel for the elderly and disabled is extremely important. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) made a particular point to which I should like to respond. Local authorities do have the power to subsidise services at times when the provision of a service might not be a commercial proposition. This obviously includes late-night services, which were also a concern of the hon. Member for Maryhill. I have every reason to believe that authorities have made use of these powers. Local authorities also have the power to set up concessionary fare schemes, and all authorities, except one island authority, have concessionary fare schemes covering the elderly and the disabled.
The hon. Member for Maryhill raised various points in relation to the disabled. I am glad to confirm that the disabled persons transport advisory committee, which was set up under the Transport Act 1985, exists to provide exactly the voice for which the hon. Member called.
The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde was concerned about safety conditions. I stress that any person wishing to operate buses must have a PSV operator's licence issued by the traffic commissioner, who has to be satisfied that the person is of good repute and financial standing and has adequate facilities to maintain the vehicles in a roadworthy condition. These vehicles are subject to an initial fitness test by the Department of Transport vehicle inspectors and are then tested annually to a higher standard than cars. They are also subject to spot-checks on the roads. I have to say that since deregulation there is no evidence to suggest that safety standards have been significantly affected, and there is no reason to expect that privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group would affect safety.
We dealt quite fully in Committee with the question of sanctions. However, I should like to repeat that sanctions do exist. The person principally concerned with the general supervision of standards is, of course, the traffic commissioner. If there is a flagrant abuse of procedures, the traffic commissioner can stop the operator from running the services and can require him to repay part of his fuel duty rebate. Although these sanctions are not used often, they are undoubtedly there. Of course, it goes without saying that any operator will wish to run a reliable and satisfactory service if he is to attract custom.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The Minister has said that the sanctions are seldom used. Can he tell the House how often they have been used?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall seek to find out the exact number of times and shall write to the hon. Member, but I think that what I said was absolutely correct: that the sanctions are severe and are rarely used. But they do exist to deal with operators who fail, without reasonable excuse, to provide in a satisfactory manner the services registered. The real test is whether they have been used in all the cases where there has been flagrant abuse, and I have reason to believe that the traffic commissioners

are doing their job competently in that connection. As I have said, the inspectors are responsible for ensuring that all vehicles are safe and roadworthy.
The question of the disabled was discussed at length in Standing Committee. I shall not go over all that ground again, but I want to mention one point. The specification recommended in the document which has been issued, and which was praised in Standing Committee, has been acted upon by the Scottish Bus Group. The group has revised its own specification to require most of the recommended items to be incorporated in any new vehicles that are purchased.

Mr. Wilson: I do not want to pre-empt anything that the Minister is going to say. We have heard that the Scottish Bus Group has incorporated the recommendation of the Committee. Can he tell us how many private operators in Scotland have done so?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is considerably more difficult to say. The answer is, of course, that the new clause does not relate to all the private operators. but it does relate to the subsidiaries being set up in the Bill. That is one of the anomalies of the new clause.
I have agreed with the hon. Member for Cunningha:me, North that there have been criticisms by the Scottish Consumer Council as to information about bus services. I shall certainly be following up this matter with the council when I meet it shortly. Of course, local authorities have power to make information available if they choose to do so, and they have a very important part to play. I shall take advantage of the discussions to consider what improvements can be made.
The new clause, to which the hon. Member addressed himself particularly, provides that there should be a new body called the Scottish bus passengers consultative committee, whose job would be to monitor the effects of the Bill on bus passengers in Scotland. The committee would make recommendations to bus operators—

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: These are factual matters, so perhaps the hon. Member can come back in a minute when I have developed the point.
The committee would make representations to bus operators and to the Secretary of State, who could then direct any of the privatised Scottish Bus Group subsidiaries to implement any such recommendation. These powers of direction go well beyond the powers of the Scottish transport users' consultative committee in relation to rail and ferry services in Scotland. They would apply only to the privatised bus companies; they would not apply to their competitors. There would, therefore, be the anomalous situation that half of the Scottish Bus Group would be subject to a statutory form of supervision which did not apply to the other half, and that would be unsatisfactory.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I think that the Minister intended some slight criticism of the new clause on the ground that it refers only to the companies covered by the Bill. If my memory serves me well, a broader new clause which was tabled in Standing Committee was ruled out of order on the ground that it was outwith the scope of the Bill. The Minister cannot have it both ways. If he wishes to accept the principle of the Bill, surely it is within his powers, when


it reaches another place, to have either the long title or the short title amended and to bring in an amendment on a broader basis within the Bill's scope.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is touching on the other matter about the STUCC and its remit—a matter that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North. If the hon. Member will give me just a moment to finish the point that I am making I shall come to that.
The powers in the new clause are very wide. It appears that the committee could make recommendations about any aspect of bus operations, presumably including fares, and the Secretary of State would be able to direct that such recommendations be implemented. However, one of the objectives of the Bill is to free the STG subsidiaries from central and governmental control. This would not merely perpetuate such control but would allow the Secretary of State to interfere in the activities of Scottish Bus Group subsidiaries to a greater extent than at present.
With regard to the remit of the STUCC, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), and, several times, including today, by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), there have been suggestions that the Scottish transport users' consultative committee should have responsibility in relation to bus services and involvement in the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group.
It might be helpful if I were to outline briefly the history of the STUCC and of the Government's thinking on this matter. The transport users' consultative committees number eight in all, and cover Scotland, England and Wales. They were set up under section 56 of the Transport Act 1962. The chairmen and members of the TUCCs are appointed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who also funds their activities.
Overall responsibility for policy matters that affect the committees therefore lies with the Department of Trade and Industry. I have, of course, spoken to my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade on this subject and my officials have been in touch with his Department concerning comments that were made in Committee.
The main function of consultative committees is to help users who have complaints about rail services and other facilities provided by British Rail and, in the case of the Scottish committee, about ferry services provided by the Scottish Transport Group. There is also the London area committee which, exceptionally, is empowered to look after consumer interests in London Regional Transport services. Road transport was excluded from its remit by legislation.
The Transport Act 1968 applied that exclusion to road transport services provided by the newly created STG. Bus services were excluded from the committee's remit as, even before deregulation, buses operated in a much more competitive and diversified environment than the public sector monopolies over whose transport services TUCCs were designed to act as watchdogs. It was felt that the TUCCs would not have the time or resources necessary to look after the wide range of services and operators, many of them locally based, in the bus sector. That argument will apply even more strongly after privatisation.

Mrs. Ray Michie: Is the Minister aware that, in its evidence to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, which studied rural transport in 1980–82, the STUCC asked the Committee to consider the need for it to have a remit to examine bus services so that there could be an integrated service in Scotland?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I sat on that Select Committee, so I am aware of the circumstances which the hon. Member describes. The bodies were set up to deal with consumers who travel using nationalised industries, not private bus companies. New legislation and changes to other legislation would be necessary to make the new clause effective. I do not think that it would be helpful to create an additional role for the STUCC at this stage.

Mr. Wilson: I shall not prolong the debate, but the Minister's reply was a litany of excuses for doing nothing.
The Minister's latter point was especially interesting. It was not a defence of his stance but a further argument against denationalisation. He told us that, as long as there are nationalised travel facilities, the consumer has a double benefit. He said that, as soon as we privatise—thus putting the service at the mercy of the market—consumers will have poorer services and be deprived of the redress offered by a consultative committee or some parallel consumer body.
The Minister was engaged in nothing more or less than casuistry. I do him the credit of suggesting that it was not of his invention. He opposed the new clause because it would cover only half of the Scottish bus industry—that half which the Bill will privatise. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said that when an attempt was made in Committee to create a consumer body with a wider remit, the Chairman ruled it out of order on the ground that it went beyond the scope of the Bill. There is nothing in new clause 5 which would prevent the Government from expanding the proposed consultative committee's remit to include the entire Scottish bus industry.
The Minister wasted everybody's time by using that 50 per cent. argument because the real reason for opposing the new clause is that the Government do not believe that private sector operations should be reviewed by any consumer body or consultative committee. That decision is at odds with the fact that consumer organisations have been established to monitor larger privatised industries. Scottish bus users are clearly not regarded as a category of citizenry who must be bought off with window dressing of that type. Privatisation is to be pushed through without even the safeguard of a consultative body.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 1

TRANSFER OF OPERATIONS OF THE GROUP

Mr. Wilson: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 1, line 9, after 'Group")', insert
'and management and employee buy-out teams'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 10, in page 1, line 9, after 'Group")', insert 'and trade unions'.
No. 11, in page 2, line 9, at end insert
'the provision that preference be shown to management/employee buyout bids'.
No. 7, in page 3, line 7, clause 3, at end insert—


'(2A) The Secretary of State shall, having regard to section 2(2)(a) of this Act, give directions to the Group to allow a 10 per cent. share to employees and management desirous of aquisition of any undertaking or part of an undertaking.'.
No. 13, in page 3, line 11, clause 3, after 'State', insert
'and to the interests of trade unions representing employees interests'.
No. 19, in page 3, line 12, clause 3, at end insert
'any financial assistance made available for management or employee buyouts shall be available for up to three buyout attempts by existing management or employees within any one of the undertakings created by the Act.'

Mr. Wilson: We have heard from the Government at every stage that they are in favour of buy-outs. Like good weather, buy-outs are a desirable thing. There is as much in the Bill to ensure the success of buy-outs as there is to ensure good weather.
Once again, we are making it clear to the Minister and putting it firmly on record that, in its present form, the Bill does nothing to make it likely that the Government's words, which have been employed to make the Bill more politically acceptable in Scotland, will be translated into reality.
We want the Minister to say that sales will not proceed until there is agreement—not consultation—among the parties concerned to ensure the success of buy-outs. In each company, buy-out teams are working to put together plausible offers. We do not think that they should have been put to this trouble—we defend the status quo in the Scottish Bus Group.
Confronted with the Government's ideological measures, however, people are working in good faith and, in some cases, raising money in good faith, in an attempt to put a buy-out together. We think that a couple of buy-outs will be allowed to succeed as a form of window dressing. There will be many photo-calls involving the Minister, holding up his little blue bus again, just to show us that, as the Government said, buy-outs have succeeded.
The big sales, however, will go to private sector companies. I am sure that the Minister will not be the ultimate authority on these matters. The ideological jiminy cricket—the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)—is not with us this evening. I am sure, however, that the idea of the entire SBG being given away or sold to some form of socialised ownership would not be too popular in that quarter.
We believe that one or two buy-outs will be allowed to succeed, but that many SBG assets will be sold to the crude private sector. To give us some reassurance, the Minister can easily accept the amendments which propose that the sale of components of the SBG will not be proceeded with until there has been agreement—not consultation—with interested parties, including management-employee buy-out teams and trade unions. That is a reasonable proposition because, if the Minister is sincere, the last thing that he would want would be to rush in to sell-offs when the buy-out teams were not ready to participate.
Our next concern is about the number of buy-out initiatives that will be given support by the Scottish Office. We have heard a great deal about the assistance that will be given to buy-outs. There will be a guarantee of £48,750 from public funds to the initiators of buy-outs if they do not succeed. Opposition Members do not believe that that

is very generous because we know that the cost of putting together a serious buy-out offer is likely to be nearer to £250,000.
In Committee we learnt from the Minister, almost by accident—it was not clear at earlier stages of our proceedings—that, within each privatised company, only one buy-out bid will qualify for the £48,750. That is unacceptable. We know that at least one of the companies that is to be sold off—a large company covering a substantial geographical area of Scotland—has two initiatives going ahead. One initiative is management-led and the other is employee-led.
It is entirely wrong and against natural justice for the Government to make a pre-emptive strike against one of those bids by saying that they will support the other with the financial guarantee of £48,750. In the legislation the Government have not said that they will support only one form of buy-out and no other. If they had had the courage to say that, they would have saved everyone a lot of trouble. English experience shows that there are various forms of buy-out. Everyone knows that there are various formats and varying degrees of emphasis on management and work force. Anyone who has contact with the real world knows that sometimes the management might not have confidence in the work force and the work force might not have confidence in the management. In those circumstances, surely each of those elements is entitled to try to put together a buy-out on is own initiative.
One of the amendments under consideration proposes that up to three potential buy-outs should qualify for Government support. That will not impose any great burden upon the public purse. We are talking about a maximum of 30 potential buy-out bids. Nobody thinks that there will be 30 bids in reality. It would be unlikely if in any more than two or three of the companies to be bought out there were rival bids from within the existing management and work force. However, to rule out the possibility and say that there are no circumstances under which management or employees will be allowed to diverge and put together rival bids to be considered on their merits is unacceptable and flies in the face of what the Government are supposed to espouse—competition.
If a worker-led bid came forward and there were employees within a company who had drive, initiative and new ideas about how it could be run more successfully and provide more services at no cost to the public purse, why should they, in effect, be disqualified without their case ever having been studied by those who are supposed to study the bids? If the Government adhere to their position, the decision on the bids would be taken not after due consideration and detailed examination but at the outset by telling one bid that it had not been selected to receive the £48,750 assistance.
In Committee the Minister said—

Mr. Robert Hughes: I just want to check my memory. Is it not the case that if the buy-out bid is successful, the money would have to be paid back?

Mr. Wilson: That is right. As my hon. Friend knows, that supports rather than contradicts my point.
It would be extremely unattractive to any group of workers or management to enter a serious bid if they had been told by the Scottish Office that the bid was so contemptible that it would not even qualify for assistance if it failed because another bid from within the same


management or work force had been judged as superior. That is what the Minister is suggesting and that is what we find unacceptable.
Within the framework of this short debate the Minister has an opportunity to say whether the Government will give any substance to their words. We lack confidence. Time and again we have put down the markers and placed on record that we would regard it as a perfectly reasonable alternative to what exists now if there were a series of companies throughout Scotland which represented the ownership of those at present employed by the Scottish Bus Group under the same conditions as at present and with the same commitment to the current level of services. In the legislation as drafted, where is any provision that underwrites the existing conditions of employment for those working in the Scottish Bus Group?
The only way that that can be ensured, as the Minister recognised in our debate on pension schemes, is if the buy-outs are given a real opportunity to succeed. On the basis of what the Minister says, we will learn whether the Government's thinking has advanced. We will discover whether there is a real commitment or whether it is simply words which they hope that the Scottish public will forget were ever uttered so that in the fullness of time they can shunt the companies off to the private sector to do with them as it will.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: A large number of points have been raised by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), but the preferences are those stated on the first day of our Committee proceedings. First, a preference is given to bids where there is a high level of employee participation through an employee share ownership plan or some other scheme designed to ensure significant employee participation. Secondly, for competitive reasons, new independent companies will also receive preference and, thirdly, companies which are locally based with their headquarters in the area to be served will receive a preference to increase local responsiveness.
Amendment No. 9 would require the Secretary of State to consult management-employee teams when drawing up the disposal programme. We have already made clear that we are determined to encourage management-employee buy-outs. We welcome the widespread interest that has been shown by management-employee teams in developing bids for their companies. Financial assistance will be given by the STG to one team per company to develop a bid. When considering bids, preference will be given to bids involving significant employee participation.
The STG and, through that, the Secretary of State will keep in touch with the development of bids. The disposal programme will set out the criteria against which the bids will be assessed, including the basis upon which a preference will be given to bids involving significant employee participation. It would not be appropriate to consult prospective purchasers, whether or not they are management-employee buy-out teams, in drawing up the disposal programme. The preparation of the programme is a matter for the Secretary of State, in consultation with the STG.
Therefore, the amendment is inappropriate. As I have said, we will keep in touch with the development of bids by management-employee buy-out teams and we shall take account of any relevant points that arise from that process.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The issue of who receives assistance and who does not is extremely important. Will the Minister confirm that the Scottish Office, or somebody, will carry out an initial selection process if there is more than one employee-management buy-out effort and that there will be, in effect, a preferred bid for assistance? If a bid falls flat quickly, will it be possible for the Secretary of State to switch the assistance to the other bid which was previously ruled out and to give those involved the chance further to develop their proposals?

6 pm

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If more than one bid is forthcoming from different management or employee teams in a given company, we shall, of course, consider those bids. All bids, from whatever source, will be given due consideration. I hope that there will not be more than one bid from within a company and I believe that it is unlikely to happen. Amendment No. 19 seeks to require the group to make any financial assistance offered to management-employee buy-out teams available for up to three buy-out attempts in any company.
It may be helpful if I remind the House of the basis on which financial assistance will be made available to management-employee teams. The assistance will be available to one team per company and will consist of an underwriting of 75 per cent. of the costs of the professional fees required to mount a bid up to £65,000—that is, a maximum of £48,750. The assistance will be required to be repaid in the event of the bid being successful. The assistance will be provided by the Scottish Transport Group, which will consider applications from management-employee teams against the background of promoting the buy-out of a controlling interest by management and employees. The best way to encourage and promote a controlling interest by employees, who include management personnel employed by the company as well as other staff, is to encourage strong competitive bids by management-employee teams. We have made it clear that bids involving a substantial degree of employee participation will receive a preference. Successful bids by management-employee teams would also help to meet the competition objective by establishing independent, locally based companies.
The best chance of success for a management-employee bid will arise if there is only one such bid from within the company. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North made an important point on that. More than one bid would probably be counter-productive because of the substantial danger that neither of the two bids would succeed. If there were disruptive factors at work, one management-employee buy-out team might not come forward. I expect the Scottish Transport Group, before reaching a decision on assistance, to see what it could do to encourage any separate teams to come together to mount a single bid. I hope very much that management and employees in the various companies will be able to agree to mount one bid. I consider amendment No. 19 to be counter-productive in terms of what the Government and the Opposition wish to achieve.

Mr. Wilson: I fully understand that the Minister hopes that one bid will emerge and perhaps that would be the best answer, but if one bid does not emerge, will the Minister maintain the right to dictate that either only one bid will emerge or that he will condemn those involved in an alternative bid to effective disqualification?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Clearly, financial assistance will be given for one management-employee buy-out team per company and no more because that would be counter-productive. Were I to agree to do more than that, it might have the effect of making it extremely difficult for either management or employees to launch a successful bid.

Mr. Wilson: So the Minister categorically denies the right either for management to have insufficient confidence in the work force to mount a bid or, more probably, for the work force to have insufficient confidence in management to mount a bid. I remind the Minister that, when the National Bus Company subsidiaries were sold off to the private sector, the first thing that the private company did in many instances was to get rid of the management because of its dissatisfaction with it. That right will not exist for workers within a company. There may be a good relationship between management and employees in most companies, but if people are not prepared to go down the road together they will not be allowed to go down the road at all.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about this. We are not preventing anybody from making a bid, but we believe that there should be one form of assistance per company.The Scottish Transport Group will give advice about which body it should go to.

Mr. Wilson: The Minister must accept that if another potential buyer was coming cold on the scene, there would be no question of qualifying for financial assistance. Yet if there are two bids from within the company that is to be sold off, a unique pre-judgment would be made by the Scottish Office about the superiority of one bid against another. It is against natural justice for the mere existence of a bid to be the basis for judgment, rather than the quality of the bid.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I very much hope that that situation will not emerge. The Scottish Transport Group will made recommendations and give advice. I remind the hon. Gentleman that clause 3(2) provides:
The Secretary of State may, having regard to section 2 of this Act, give directions to the Group as to the manner in which they are to implement the disposal programme generally or in any case specified in the directions.
I accept that the Secretary of State will have the ultimate responsibility because he will have to approve each sale. Any group can make a bid and will be considered seriously, but assistance will be given only for one management-employee buy-out team per company.

Mr. McAllion: The Minister said that there will be only one form of financial assistance per company, in the form of the £48,750 to help people to put together a bid in the first place. In Committee, it emerged that the Scottish Development Agency has been investing public money in the private operator Stagecoach to enable it to put together £5 million with which to buy some of the public assets involved in this privatisation. The Minister said that

the money that the Scottish Development Agency invested in Stagecoach was more than £65,000, but less than £1million. Will he tell us exactly how much public money the Scottish Development Agency has invested in the Stagecoach operation and whether the same level of investment will be available to every bid, including management-employee bids, that is made to buy one of the subsidiaries? If there are one, two or three management-employee bids within a company, will they all receive the assistance from the Scottish Development Agency that Stagecoach has received?

Mr. Bill Walker: I want to speak briefly. As those hon. Members who were in Committee know, I have been giving advice to Strathtay, which is the current Scottish Bus Group company, and to Stagecoach, both of which operate in my constituency. I hope that both companies will be successful in the privatisation programme because both have much to contribute in different ways.
There is some merit in amendment No. 19, which deals with the possibility of more than one group within management and employees considering a buy-out. In any auction, the more who bid, the greater the likelihood of obtaining the best possible price. In this instance, that is in the interests of taxpayers and also of managers and employees because it is only through learning what the values are and what the method of bidding is that they will achieve a learning curve. Anyone who has had dealings with the present management of the Scottish Bus Group will realise that that is new, uncharted territory for most of them. Some people have previously worked in the English companies when they were privatised and have some direct experience, but the majority have not. There would have been merit in considering the possibility that more than one proposal might come forward in any given company in the group.
It is interesting that the Minister believes that that could have a damaging impact on the quality of bids and that it is better to receive one bid that represents management and employees. He must know—as I know —that some managers are more acceptable to some of the employees than others and that the employees may wish to follow those managers down this road. That is fairly common—there is nothing unusual about it. In any large, structured company, some people are better motivators and better at getting on with the work force than others. Although that does not necessarily mean that they are good or bad managers, it may have an impact on the employees' decision about whether they wish to be part of any bid.
We are talking about a lot of money. Although it may not seem much to people who are used to talking in millions, it will be a substantial risk for the individuals involved. That, too, will have an impact on the decisions made, especially by the employees.
I hope that both Stagecoach and Strathtay will be successful. Strathtay is a good operation and well put together. Those companies could be successful in different parts of the country. Strathtay could be successful in Tayside, and Stagecoach elsewhere. I have never made any secret of the fact—

Mr. Wilson: We know that the hon. Gentleman is advising both companies—he informed us of that in Committee and has said so again tonight—but is it correct


that he is backing Strathtay for his own area? Can he give us any reason why the same principle should not be applied to any part of the country that does not happen to be his own?

Mr. Walker: I can answer that easily. I do not know the facts and the background and have not met the people at other firms, but I am impressed by the quality of the management and the attitude of the employees at Strathtay. If I had the opportunity, which I have not had, to go round the rest of Scotland, perhaps I would form the same view of the rest. I am judging by the quality of the management, the leadership and the fact that Strathtay employees—the hon. Gentleman knows this because it came out in Committee—are having funds deducted from their pay every week to make their contributions to buying the shares. I do not know whether that is being emulated elsewhere, so I am asking rather than making a statement. However, as I have said, I am impressed by the quality and the attitude adopted and therefore hope that Strathtay will be successful.
In the final analysis, I hope that whoever acquires the independent groups will be committed to road transport and to public service vehicle activities. That applies equally to those in the private sector and to those who are now in the public sector but who hope to make some kind of management-employee buy-out. It is important to Scotland that those who end up running our bus operations are committed to bus operations. That is one reason why I have no hesitation in saying that I support Stagecoach also.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) for his speech. Obviously, he will give whatever support he can to his constituency, and that is welcome.
In Committee I promised the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) that I would follow up with the Scottish Development Agency the need for management-employee buy-out teams to receive the same treatment as any other applicant for assistance from the SDA. I confirm that my officials have written to the chief executive of the SDA to strengthen that point.

Mr. McAllion: Has the chief executive of the Scottish Development Agency acted on that letter?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have not yet seen a reply from the chief executive, but my understanding is that the position is exactly as I told the hon. Gentleman in Committee. There will be comparable treatment, which is what the hon. Gentleman wants.

Mr. Wilson: We have noted with interest the declaration from the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that he will support Stagecoach everywhere except in his own backyard—

Mr. Bill Walker: I have made it clear that I would not be unhappy if Stagecoach ended up with the Strathtay area, but that I would prefer Strathtay bus company.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has not added anything to my previous comment.
I come back to the Minister on the question of Scottish Development Agency assistance to Stagecoach. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion)

asked specifically how much it has received. My understanding is that it is no secret and that it is public information—that is unless it has received £250,000 or more. Surely it has not received £250,000 or more.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Scottish Development Agency, in syndicate with a number of other financial institutions, subscribed part of a total of £5million new money raised by Stagecoach. The SDA's investment was made in accordance with our normal commercial criteria to help to strengthen the financial and business position of an expanding company, headquartered in Scotland, which is prepared to provide the prospect of continued growth.
I stress that that money relates to new equity and is not directly linked to any specific plans by Stagecoach for bids for SBG companies. The point that the hon. Member for Dundee, East was making was about assistance to management-employee buy-out teams.

Mr. Wilson: With respect, that is not good enough. I am asking a straight question to which the Minister can either give or refuse to give the answer. How much public money has Stagecoach received through the Scottish Development Agency? The Minister should not give us that disingenuous stuff about new equity, which is not meant to assist with buying Scottish Bus Group companies. Stagecoach has been more honest and straightforward than that and has told us that it will bid for every part of the Scottish Bus Group. That will be the point at which the Minister's lip service to buy-outs will be put to the test. The Minister now has an opportunity to clarify that position. I assume that he has the information in front of him. Presumably public money is not dispensed with such largesse to Stagecoach or anyone else that the Minister does not know how much has been given. How much Scottish Development Agency money has gone to Stagecoach?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: As I said in Committee, it is less than £1 million. I shall check the exact figure with the SDA and, if I am in a position to reveal it, I shall do so.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 199.

Division No. 103]
[6.16 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Cryer, Bob


Alton, David
Cummings, John


Anderson, Donald
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Beckett, Margaret
Dewar, Donald


Beith, A. J.
Dixon, Don


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Bermingham, Gerald
Eastham, Ken


Blunkett, David
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Boateng, Paul
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Bradley, Keith
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Faulds, Andrew


Buckley, George J.
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Caborn, Richard
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Flannery, Martin


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Flynn, Paul


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Foster, Derek


Clay, Bob
Fyfe, Maria


Clelland, David
Galbraith, Sam


Corbett, Robin
Galloway, George


Corbyn, Jeremy
Godman, Dr Norman A.






Golding, Mrs Llin
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Gordon, Mildred
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Graham, Thomas
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morgan, Rhodri


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mullin, Chris


Hardy, Peter
Murphy, Paul


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Neill, Martin


Haynes, Frank
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Heffer, Eric S.
Patchett, Terry


Henderson, Doug
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Pike, Peter L.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Ingram, Adam
Reid, Dr John


Janner, Greville
Richardson, Jo


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Robertson, George


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Ruddock, Joan


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kennedy, Charles
Short, Clare


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Skinner, Dennis


Lamond, James
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S F'bury)


Leadbitter, Ted
Spearing, Nigel


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Steinberg, Gerry


McAllion, John
Strang, Gavin


McAvoy, Thomas
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McCartney, Ian
Wall, Pat


McFall, John
Wareing, Robert N.


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


McKelvey, William
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Maclennan, Robert
Wigley, Dafydd


McNamara, Kevin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


McWilliam, John
Wilson, Brian


Madden, Max
Winnick, David


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Marek, Dr John


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maxton, John
Mr. Frank Cook and


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.


NOES


Alexander, Richard
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Amess, David
Colvin, Michael


Amos, Alan
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Arbuthnot, James
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cope, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Critchley, Julian


Ashby, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Atkins, Robert
Devlin, Tim


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Dorrell, Stephen


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Batiste, Spencer
Dover, Den


Bellingham, Henry
Dunn, Bob


Bendall, Vivian
Durant, Tony


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Dykes, Hugh


Benyon, W.
Eggar, Tim


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evennett, David


Bottomley, Peter
Fallon, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Favell, Tony


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brazier, Julian
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bright, Graham
Fookes, Dame Janet


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Forman, Nigel


Browne, John (Winchester)
Forth, Eric


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Franks, Cecil


Buck, Sir Antony
Freeman, Roger


Burns, Simon
Gale, Roger


Butler, Chris
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Butterfill, John
Gill, Christopher


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Carrington, Matthew
Goodlad, Alastair


Carttiss, Michael
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Cash, William
Gow, Ian


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Chapman, Sydney
Gregory, Conal


Chope, Christopher
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')





Grist, Ian
Patnick, Irvine


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hanley, Jeremy
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hannam, John
Powell, William (Corby)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Price, Sir David


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Raffan, Keith


Harris, David
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hayward, Robert
Rathbone, Tim


Heddle, John
Redwood, John


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Riddick, Graham


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hind, Kenneth
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'lh'm)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Holt, Richard
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hordern, Sir Peter
Shaw, David (Dover)


Howard, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Shersby, Michael


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Sims, Roger


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hunter, Andrew
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Irvine, Michael
Speller, Tony


Irving, Charles
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Jack, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Janman, Tim
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Stern, Michael


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Summerson, Hugo


Key, Robert
Tapsell, Sir Peter


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Knapman, Roger
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Knowles, Michael
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Lang, Ian
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lawrence, Ivan
Thurnham, Peter


Lightbown, David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Tracey, Richard


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Tredinnick, David


Lord, Michael
Trippier, David


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mans, Keith
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Walden, George


Mates, Michael
Walker, Bill (Tside North)


Miller, Sir Hal
Waller, Gary


Mills, Iain
Ward, John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wells, Bowen


Mitchell, Sir David
Wheeler, John


Moore, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Ray


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Widdecombe, Ann


Morrison, Sir Charles
Wilkinson, John


Moss, Malcolm
Wilshire, David


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Mudd, David
Wolfson, Mark


Nelson, Anthony
Wood, Timothy


Neubert, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Nicholls, Patrick
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Tellers for the Noes:


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Mr. David Maclean and


Page, Richard
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.


Paice, James

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Wilson: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 12, at end insert—
'(1A) It shall be a condition of purchase for any undertaking proposed for sale under this section that the business shall not be re-sold within a period of five years without the consent of employees in the undertaking'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments.
No. 4, in clause 2, page 2, line 29, at end insert—
'(1A) In giving effect to subsection (1) above, no single buyer may own more than two of the subsidiaries set up for disposal'.


No. 5, in clause 3, page 3, line 7, at end insert
'and in giving such directions the Secretary of State shall direct that no fixed assets shall be sold by a disposed undertaking within a period of five years without the consent of the Secretary of State'.

Mr. Wilson: We now come to the disposal of assets of the Scottish Transport Group. The key amendment is No. 3. Amendment No. 5 deals with the assets of the undertaking and states that they should not be disposed of within five years after privatisation.
The Bill is a potential asset stripper's charter. There is no hypothesis in that. We have only to look at what has happened in England and Wales to see why the fears that Opposition Members are expressing are so strongly founded. We have only to look at the string of sell-offs of assets of the former National Bus Company groups after privatisation to demonstrate conclusively that those are not far-fetched fears or exaggerated concerns. It is the reality. Unless safeguards are introduced, sell-offs will Occur.
I want to look in particular at the case of Hampshire Bus which was based in Southampton. It was sold as part of the National Bus Company sale to a company about which we have heard a great deal in our deliberations, Stagecoach, which is based in Perth. Hampshire Bus was sold for £2 million. It owned two bus stations in Southampton. One was used for city buses and the other for long-distance coaches. At the time of privatisation it was well known that the city bus station was subject to a compulsory purchase order by the council and would be taken over for whatever sum. I have been unable to establish precisely what the sum was. It was apparently part of a complex transport property transaction.
6.30
As I observed on Saturday when I visited Southampton, that site is now the scene of development building work. What was wholly unacceptable and certainly played no part in the deliberations prior to privatisation was that the coach station would also be sold. That was the surprise packet that Stagecoach pulled out of the bag. Having bought Hampshire Bus for £2 million, it sold the coach station for £4·1 million within a fortnight of the initial purchase. The profit on that deal was £2·1 million, with the great majority of assets still in hand.
Since then Stagecoach has disposed of a large part of the bus operations. They were sold to Solent Blue Line, which is a subsidiary of Southern Vectis on the Isle of Wight. It is believed that the selling price for the mobile assets of Hampshire Bus was about £1 million. We now know that Stagecoach has obtained a minimum of £5·1 million for the £2 million worth of public sector assets.
As I observed in Southampton, that leaves a problem for the travelling public. It can be defined as a lack of bus stations. Solent Blue Line no longer operates any sort of bus station in the town centre. Anyone who wishes information about bus services goes to a bus. "Where better?", Tory Members may ask. A bus has been turned into a mobile information centre, giving details of the times of services and other facilities provided. The bus stops in Southampton are ranged along the pavements with the various companies using those facilities—that is perhaps too strong a word—which leads to congestion.
The operational station—the enginering workshop and so on—which was previously accommodated within the bus station has been shunted off to a glorified shed on what can best be described as a piece of waste ground. That is the joy of privatisation in that particular case. Solent Blue Line offers no proper facilities, such as canteens, for workers and they cannot all crowd into a bus to take advantage of such facilities as it provides.
The progression has been as follows: Hampshire Bus was sold to Stagecoach for £2·1 million. Its city bus station was sold for development and its long-distance coach station was wholly unexpectedly sold for £4·1 million. Half the buses were sold for £1 million. The remaining facilities for city bus travellers are virtually nil.
Although Hampshire Bus's successor, Stagecoach, in what we were told was splendid entrepreneurial fashion, doubled its money in a fortnight by selling the coach station, it still left the problem that some people wanted to travel by coach. Fortunately, Southampton is under Labour control and there is an interest in providing public services. Despite the fact that the public purse had been so shamefully ripped off by the sales and the asset stripping, it was left to the ratepayers, through the local authority, to pick up the tab. Because of Stagecoach's speculation, the ratepayers of Southampton have had to fork out £138,000 to provide another coach station. The good, sturdy, private sector alternative would have been to leave people waiting in the rain. After all, why do they need a coach station? If Stagecoach has sold it, why should the contemptible consumers of bus services not just be left to suffer from market forces imposed on them by the Government through privatisation? The people of Southampton have paid £138,000 to assist Stagecoach towards its profit of a minimum of £3·1 million.
In the last few minutes of the Committee stage we had an interesting debate when the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) defended what had happened. He said that it did not matter how the £3·1 million was acquired and that it was what the company did with the money that mattered. So long as it invested the money in buses, that was all right. That is an extraordinary doctrine of private enterprise. In other words, it is defensible to buy public assets cheap in order to sell them dear. It is a disgrace to the word "enterprise" to attach that claim to it.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman should look a little more carefully at what I said. I have not yet seen the Hansard report of our proceedings, but I said that the assets of any company are its resources, which are human as well as physical. Buildings and buses, as well as employees, are its assets. It is how the management employs those assets to the benefit of the whole that matters. It does not matter that a company has large capital assets if they are under-employed and if the company is going broke. It makes no difference. Management is required to maximise the use of assets. That is exactly what I said.

Mr. Wilson: That is a sophistication of what the hon. Gentleman said and the record will show that. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is distancing himself from what happened. If so, I welcome that.
Clearly, this case was an outrageous fraud on the public purse. Someone has said that the assets of Hampshire Bus were worth £2 million. Within weeks Stagecoach had turned. them into £5·1 million and still had half the


operation left. Does the Minister care to defend that? If nobody does, why the hell are the Government doing this again under this Bill? There is nothing in the Bill which gives the slightest safeguard against that sort of asset stripping by the same companies to which sections of the National Bus Company were sold.
We are playing for big stakes here. There are many big sharks waiting for the wee Minister to announce the terms of these sales. My advice is that the development value of Buchanan street bus station in Glasgow is £4 million. The development value of St. Andrews square bus station is extremely difficult to assess because in the last year alone commercial property values in the centre of Edinburgh have literally doubled. The best estimate that I can get is that it has a development value of £15 million. Even the Southampton example pales into relative financial insignificance compared with the huge sums that are at stake in the sale of the Scottish Bus Group companies. The Minister will have to agree that nothing in the Bill would stop whoever buys Eastern Scottish from selling the St. Andrews square bus station a fortnight later for £15 million or thereabouts.
On previous form today and in Committee, the Minister will say, "We hope that it does not happen. We do not want it to happen. We shall take into consideration the possibility that it might happen, but it would be dreadful if it did." But the Government will do nothing about it. When it does happen, all that the Minister will be able to say is, "It should not have happened."
In Committee I gave a list of the bus stations in town and city centres in England that had been sold off similarly to, although rather less spectacularly than, the station in Southampton. The record shows that it happened all over the country. Asset strippers and property developers are extremely interested in the property assets of bus companies, and nothing in the Bill would exclude them from bidding for bus companies. A property developer who was interested in bidding for a bus company would not put himself forward as such, but would acquire the acceptable face of a bus company. How will the Scottish Office separate one from the other? The answer is that it cannot and will not. Unless something is written into the Bill to prevent it from happening, what happened in Southampton will happen in the towns and cities of Scotland. Will the Minister write a safeguard into the Bill?
The other amendments in the group deal with the resale of the businesses themselves, which we suggest should not be done without the consent of employees in the undertakings. It is a modest proposition, but I do not expect the Minister to accept it. Time and again in England and Wales, the company that bought the bus undertaking in the first instance proved to be only a halfway house to resales, mergers and splits, and all the time the very last consideration was for the interests of the travelling public. If nothing is inserted in the legislation, that will happen again.
I want the Minister to deal with the details of the Southampton case and of the Scottish company involved in that case. Who advised the Government that the assets of Hampshire Bus should be sold for £2 million? Will those same advisers be involved in valuing property assets in Edinburgh, Glasgow and other cities and towns where the Scottish Bus Group has properties? I do not expect the Minister to say that the matter is outwith his ministerial

remit. No Minister could have introduced this legislation without having investigated extensively the experience in England and Wales.
If the Minister admits that monumental errors were made that allowed those profits to accrue to companies that were almost given the assets of the National Bus Company, he must tell us what will be inserted in the legislation to prevent those errors from being made again. The potential also exists for conspiracy, because the idea of people getting their hands on public property at a low valuation and of selling it for a different purpose at a high price is no novelty. Will the Minister safeguard against that, or will he make this Bill a charter for asset strippers and property developers?

Mr. Robert Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) has made a compelling case for the amendments, and I wish only to reinforce one or two of his points.
Before I do that, may I deal with the intervention of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who said that there was a difference between asset stripping and freeing capital for use in a company? To some extent, he is right. We all know that some struggling companies that are trying to develop their business and put money into services might wish to develop by introducing modern buses, by erecting good bus shelters or by creating decent waiting facilities in their out-of-town operations. If that had happened after the sale of the National Bus Company, one could accept it as good business. Companies may run into cash-flow problems. To pay the wages, they may have to realise some of their assets. Had that been the case with the National Bus Company, one would not have quarrelled with it.
As the hon. Member for Tayside, North knows, the difficulty is that that is the opposite of what happened in England and Wales. Assets were sold not to be reinvested in mobile assets or to provide better services, but simply to take profits out of the company without regard to how they had been earned. The hon. Gentleman had better address his mind to that difference.
We believe that the amendments are vital because we have never been told officially the price of any of the bus companies.

6.45

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman must have studied what has happened in the company referred to, so he will know that it has used the assets to buy new buses. The hon. Gentleman understands how businesses are run. If one can spread a core cost over a larger operation one can offer cheaper fares. That is exactly what has happened with that company because the costs of the base operations have been spread over a much wider network. That is using assets, not stripping them.

Mr. Hughes: Had that happened, it would have been fine, but we know that it did not happen in the vast majority of cases.
The problem is compounded by the fact that we have not been told the prices realised by the sale of the NBC's subsidiary companies. What is more, we are told unequivocally that only those who are fortunate enough to live for another 30 years will be able to find out the purchase price of those companies. I presume that the


papers will become available then. It is a bit perverse that one's potential for getting public information depends on one's age. But that is what the Government rely on.
The Minister is a friendly young chap. I do not know the latest medical prognosis of how long he will live, but perhaps he is hoping not to be around in 30 years' time when the papers become available. If he is, he will know that he has repeated the error that was made in England and Wales.
The Minister has made matters worse. Several times in Committee, when defending differences of approach in the Scottish Office and slight differences in this Bill, he said that one of the great benefits of introducing this Bill some years after the privatisation of buses in England and Wales was experience. Yet on this important issue the Government have not taken that experience into account.
The Government say that they cannot tell us the value of the companies because the information is commercially sensitive. I do not understand how it can be against commercial interests to be told the selling price. I repeat the charge that we made in Committee which the Minister, regrettably, did not answer. If a local authority behaved as the Government have over the sale of public assets, its members would be disqualified and taken before the district auditor and might have to spend some time in gaol —and quite right, too. There should be no secrecy. We should be told precisely what the sale price is.
The Minister's only defence—I do not recall him using it in Committee—against the charge that he is wantonly selling public assets cheaply is that we always have recourse to the Public Accounts Committee. The trouble is that that Committee does not have the information on which to act. I have no information with which to write to the Chairman of the Committee asking it to investigate the sale.
Perhaps I had better measure my words carefully, as I do not wish to embarrass anyone. I made inquiries about one of the sales mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North. When I asked how the Public Accounts Committee could examine what I regarded as gross excesses and a gross dereliction of duty by the Secretary of State for Transport, I was told-quite properly-that the PAC could investigate only specific charges. It was no use my saying, "I read in the papers that this happened", "I believe that this happened" or "There is speculation that this happened". The PAC wants hard and fast information, and it is right that it should. We do not want to pillory people without cause. I consider that one of the great benefits of public investigation is that not only are the guilty found guilty but the innocent are exonerated if false charges are made.
The Minister, however, is encouraging speculation and rumour. He is leading us to believe that the information will never be provided. That will fuel speculation. Indeed, we have good grounds for believing that the information that we have been given is accurate: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North would not have read out that list without a solid belief that the property speculators were busy.
Why should this matter? It matters in principle. Someone once said that principles were expensive things. The people who suffer if they are broken are not the owners, the shareholders or the board of directors, but

those who work in the industry—people who have given their lives to that industry, built up the companies' assets and made them into going concerns attractive for privatisation.
I am astonished to see that no Government amendments have been tabled. I certainly do not charge the Minister with dishonesty; if I were to do so I should be reprimanded. Nevertheless, he has not honoured the spirit of the words that he used in Committee, where we engaged in a long debate about the value of the assets and the effect on the workers. I regret that I cannot quote the Minister exactly, but I am sure that he will tell me if my paraphrase is inaccurate.
The Minister said that he understood the points that we were making and would undertake a close examination to find out what information could be made available. He hinted, at least, that he might be prepared to table a Government amendment on Report to cover the possibility of making the sale price known. In answer to a question from me to that effect, he said in his charming way—with the little smile that he wears when replying—"We shall have to look at it." Perhaps I am becoming too gullible in my old age. I believed that he might bring forward such an amendment, but he has not done so.
The Prime Minister believes that her words strike a chord with the British public. I shall not allow myself to be tempted to discuss devolution, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because, apart from getting into trouble with you, I should get into trouble with my hon. Friends. Let me, however, refer briefly to the speech in which the Prime Minister said that she was totally against devolution. Why? Because, she said, she wanted to devolve power to the individual, not to corporate bodies. That, incidentally, is the core ethos of Socialism; we want power for the individual. It seems odd that the Prime Minister should use the same words as us. I thought for a moment that she had been re-reading "Das Kapital" in her spare time, but 1 suspect that it was all a charade.
We have learned one thing from this Government, if nothing else. When the Prime Minister speaks, Ministers jump. Either they jump out of the Cabinet, or they jump around in it. If the Prime Minister had meant what she said, and if the Secretary of State—whom I am delighted to see taking an interest in the Bill—had conveyed her message properly, the Minister would have put down an amendment, and would by this time have leapt to his feet to accept amendment No. 3.
What better example of devolution to the individual could there be than the provision in amendment No. 3 that
It shall be a condition of purchase for any undertaking proposed for sale . . . that the business shall not be re-sold within a period of five years without the consent of employees in the undertaking.
Perhaps the Prime Minister thinks that that is too modest. Perhaps the Minister will say that five years is not long enough, and will propose a Lords amendment providing that the business shall never be resold without the consent of the employees. I would accept that. I would go out of the Chamber with my tail between my legs. I would have to go to my constituency and say that I had been outbid by Tory Ministers, and that after complaining for all these years about their accruing power to themselves I had found that I had been wrong all the time. But I know that I am right. The Government have no intention of giving power to anyone except those who hold the purse strings. The paymasters of the Tory party have said, "You will


privatise. You will sell off the companies. The power will go with the purse strings, and the people who get the companies will be those who ray the most bucks."
In Committee, the Minister said that he wanted to give a fair wind to employee-management buy-outs. None of us, however, is naive enough to believe that such a buy-out will necessarily succeed in every case. If a private entrepreneur comes along and buys the company, there must be a fall-back provision for employees to have a say on whether their livelihoods are to be bought and sold.
There has been great agitation about the fate of professional footballers—a cause close to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North, and indeed of great interest to all of us who are football fans. The idea that a player was bound to a company for the rest of his life, and could be bought and sold like a chattel with no real say in the matter, went out of the window because it offended against the principles of individuality. I think that, having accepted that, we must also accept that the buying and selling of jobs in this context is also an affront to individuality. I know that the Minister believes that, and I hope that he will accept amendment No. 3.
The Minister said in Committee that he believed that if abuses were proven the Secretary of State would be able to act. I can find no reference in the Bill to his having the power to act: it must be one of the more nebulous powers in the legislation. I hope that if the Minister cannot accept the amendment he will take the matter seriously and will understand that we are dealing with people who, by and large, do not have the interests of the travelling public at heart, but are interested only in making money. They do not care about the people in the industry or those who may serve. The Minister ought to accept this group of amendments in principle—on ethical grounds—and I am sure that he will do so.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has raised again a question that he put in Committee about publication of the prices obtained for the subsidiaries. I said that once the process of privatisation had been completed we would publish the figure for the total proceeds, and also that I would reconsider the possibility of publishing individual sale proceeds.
The suggestion that we should publish the amount paid for each company raises difficult problems of commercial confidentiality. During the process of privatisation it will clearly not be a good idea to publish the amount received for each company, as it could well affect prices in subsequent sales.

Mr. Robert Hughes: If the Minister will say that, once all the companies have been sold, he will publish the individual price, I at least will be willing to meet him halfway and accept that.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have considered this matter carefully. Publishing the prices once the sales are completed also raises problems of commercial confidentiality because the companies involved may be concerned that the price they paid for a business should not be revealed to their competitors. The financial backers may also be sensitive about the disclosure of the purchase price that they had supported.
7 pm
With regard to the public interest, the important figure is the sum that is realised for the Scottish Bus Group as a whole. I have already said that we shall publish that figure once all the sales are completed. If individual purchasers want to reveal what they paid for a company, it is a matter for them. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North is no doubt aware that Grampian Transport plc has revealed that it paid about £5 million for Grampian Regional Transport. After carefully reconsidering the issue. may I say that we would not want, as a matter of practice, to publish the proceeds from each company sold.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The Minister should not pray in aid the Grampian experience, which is totally different. He knows that Grampian regional council is bound by statute to say how much it got from the sale; it cannot simply say that it will not tell anyone.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I stress that any company can reveal what it paid, but it is a matter for the company.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) asked about the Scottish Development Agency investment in Stagecoach. The investment was worth £500,000 and was made in the form of preference shares.
Amendment No. 3 would make it impossible for a Scottish Bus Group subsidiary to be resold within five years without the consent of its employees. That would impose a limitation on the Freedom of action of that company which would not apply to the companies with which it was competing. That could cause difficulties and if such an inhibition operated which did not apply to other bus companies it could make it difficult for management-employee buy-out teams to raise funds. However we are keen to see employees participating in their companies through share ownership. The more substantial that share ownership, the more voice employees will have in the running of their company and over issues such as change of ownership.
In privatising the Scottish Bus Group in the pattern we have chosen, we aim to set up a number of new, viable independent bus companies which will ensure healthy competition. We obviously want to see those companies continue as viable units. Successful operation is obviously the way to achieve that—not by giving employees a veto as proposed in amendment No. 3. In any case, it is not clear why the period of five years has been chosen. The best course is surely to encourage bids with substantial employee participation which will ensure that employees have a say in the operations of their company in the long term.

Mr. Wilson: As the Minister reiterates his enthusiasm for bids that give workers a substantial say, does he consider that there is any conflict between that and what he has told us about the SDA investing £500,000 to ensure that such bids do not succeed?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Out of a total of £5 million investment provided by a number of financial institutions, the SDA contributed £500,000 in the form of preference shares. That does not alter the reality, and representations have been made to the chief executive of the SDA arising out of what was discussed in Committee.
Amendment No. 4 would limit to two companies the number of bus companies which one purchaser could buy.
The prime aim of the privatisation is to increase competition, efficiency and service to the consumer. No limitations were written into the English and Welsh legislation, and I do not believe that such a limitation is appropriate in this case.
The House should reject the amendment, but should be assured that we have taken on board the point made by the amendment. We entirely accept the need to avoid a single buyer acquiring too many bus companies. In England, when 72 units were sold, no single buyer was allowed to acquire more than four. An application of a similar proportion to the 11 SBG subsidiaries—that is nine operating subsidiaries plus two other operations—would limit any single purchaser to acquiring one subsidiary.
We accept the need to avoid a single buyer acquiring too many bus companies. In part, of course, it depends where those companies are. However, given the nature of Scotland, with its urban concentration in the central belt, we accept the need to limit the numbers bought by one purchaser and will consider what can be said in the disposal programme, by which time the picture will be clearer.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North spent a considerable time addressing amendment No. 5, which would prevent any of the privatised bus companies from disposing of fixed assets within five years without the consent of the Secretary of State. It is obviously important to ensure that there is no asset stripping.
It is clearly essential to ensure that property is properly valued, not only on its existing use value for bus operations, but on other bases such as its full development value. We obviously want to avoid asset stripping and the selling on of assets at a large profit. Specialist property advisers have been appointed to value all the properties of the bus group and to advise on the best treatment of those properties in the course of the sale. There are essentially three options for dealing with the properties. The first option is to strip the property from the company and sell it separately. This might apply to a property that is not really essential for the running of a bus undertaking. The second option is to sell the property along with the company but ensure that the price received for the company fully reflects the range of values for the assets. The third option is to sell the property along with the company but with a legal charge on the property which will ensure that if the property is sold, say for development, within a specified period, the Government will receive a specified share of the development proceeds. A fourth option—I did not mention it in Committee—is to sell the property separately but arrange for it to be leased to the bus operating company.
A prohibition on sales of property without the Secretary of State's consent would not achieve the desired objective. The only control open to the Secretary of State would be to prevent the property from being sold for a period. It would not prevent the owning company profiting from the sale. After five years there would be no controls at all.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North also asked about the arrangements for the sale of the NBC and its assets in Southampton. That is a matter for the Secretary of State for Transport and I would not want to comment on it. I have made clear the actions that we shall take to

avoid asset stripping. The key element is to obtain professional advice on the value of the assets at current use and for development.

Mr. Wilson: Even by the Minister's formidable standards, that was a pathetic reply. I may be naive, and possibly the Minister will tell us differently, but perhaps there were no professional advisers in England and Wales. Perhaps the number of such advisers was pulled out of a hat. What possible answer is it to say that there will be professional advice? Of course there will be professional advice, but we are talking about whether that advice will be any good.
We have already explained in some detail that the professional advice that the Government got in England and Wales stank. Whether that was due to incompetence or corruption, we shall never know, but we know that public assets were sold off cheaply to be sold on dear. That was done on the basis of professional advice.
The Minister has said that what happened with the NBC is nothing to do with him but is for the Secretary of State for Transport to consider. Scottish Office Ministers are extremely selective about when we are operating in a unitary Parliament with unitary interests and when we are operating as a small segment of the United Kingdom when that segment is not supposed to know what is going on in another. Is the Minister seriously saying that when he drew up the disposal scheme and the scheme for professional advice he had no consultation with the Secretary of State for Transport? If so, it is certain that the quality of the professional advice will not be any better in Scotland than it was in England and Wales. Once again I challenge the Minister to address the Southampton example. Would the Minister find it acceptable if the same sort of windfall profits were made by the beneficiaries of the sell-offs? Would there be anything wrong with that?
Perhaps the Minister could clarify the impression given by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who believes that it is all right to buy from the public purse something for £2 million and then to sell off a fraction of it for £4·1 million a fortnight later as long as the proceeds of the sale go to buses. Perhaps the Minister could write a cheque. Why should the Minister sell off the subsidiaries? Why not give them away while saying, "Look here, have it, so long as you spend the proceeds on buying buses.". The public purse would not get anything; after all, it all comes to the same thing. If the Government had given away Hampshire Bus and the assets had then been sold for £2·1 million, the profit would have been the same to the buyer, and the loss to the public purse in real terms would have been no less. Does the Minister regard that as acceptable?
Will the Minister tell us the names of the professional advisers? Are they the people who gave such appalling advice about Hampshire Bus and other segments of the National Bus Company? Does the Minister have any information about that? Has any account been taken of the record of those advisers in past sell-offs? Is it the same old boys' network? Is it always the same advisers and no matter what advice they give and whether it is right or wrong they will always be there? The Minister must tell us something. He must not simply say that there will be professional advisers. I understood in Committee that they were already at work.

Mr. Graham: Perhaps they are the professional advisers who advised the Government to sell the royal ordnance factory in my constituency for a pittance to people who later recouped the price in one sale.

Mr. Wilson: That is an interesting question. My guess would be that they are the same advisers or perhaps from the same coterie of advisers. They are either bent or stupid, but they are not competent and certainly are not working in the public interest.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that I said in Committee that the advisers were Kenneth Ryden and Partners?

Mr. Wilson: I am well aware that the Minister said in Committee that Kenneth Ryden and Partners were advisers on property values. He did not say whether they had been involved in any of the English advice or whether they were advising on the valuations as going concerns as bus stations or advising on the development values. He did not say whether two sets of values had arisen in the English context. I am sure that the Minister has consulted his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about that.
Were there two valuations for the coach station in Southampton? We shall be grateful if the Minister can help us on that, but if he cannot perhaps he will help us another time.
I am grateful to the Minister for at least informing us that £500,000 of public money has been invested in Stagecoach in order, presumably, to help establish the level playing field which we are told is to exist in these sell-offs. I am surprised that at this sensitive time the Scottish Development Agency should have seen fit to invest £500,000 in Stagecoach, but I suppose that is a matter for the SDA—unless it did that under political direction. Perhaps the Minister will tell us about that as well.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that since its inception the SDA has been investing in this way throughout Scotland and in companies. There is nothing odd about that. Why should it make fish of one and fowl of another? The fact that Stagecoach applied and was accepted is surely enough. There is no end of examples of companies obtaining assistance in this equity form and then going on to be assets to Scotland. Unfortunately, others have been disasters and much public money has gone into them. It is part of the risk that the SDA takes in evaluating this type of equity, and it goes on all the time.

Mr. Wilson: Unlike Conservative Members, I am an admirer of the SDA and I am not attacking it in any way. I just find it a little odd that, at this sensitive time, when Stagecoach has announced that it will bid for every Scottish Bus Group subsidiary and is putting together a £5 million war chest for that purpose, the SDA is investing £500,000. That is especially surprising because the successful achievement of Stagecoach's aims appears to be in conflict with the Government's preference as repeatedly stated by the Minister. It is even against the wishes of the hon. Member for Tayside (Mr. Walker), because he has made it clear that he does not want Stagecoach to succeed in his area.
The other issue upon which the Minister was at his disingenuous worst was about why individual sale proceeds could not be revealed to us. The magic words

"commercial confidentiality" were incanted. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) capably said, a local authority does not have any such option because its dealings have to be a matter of public record. It has always been a mystery to me why the Government can hide behind commercial confidentiality while local authorities have to do things up front.
7.15 pm
The idea that the interests of the buyers should be protected is also mysterious. It is not like a pools entry when one can mark an X for no publicity. The public is entitled to know what has been paid for public assets; there can be no ifs or buts about that. That should be an entitlement, as it is in local government but for some reason is not in Government dealings. However, the truth will out and in each of the 72 National Bus Company sell-offs those who keep an eye on the industry were in a strong position to find out what was paid.
I assure the Minister that we shall keep a close eye on these sales. Even though the Government may be afraid to say what has been paid for the companies, we shall do so and will be able to compare the selling price with the asset stripping price when that process is engaged in.
The Minister was asked many specific questions about the lessons that were learned from the sell-offs and the asset strippings in England and Wales, which in some cases involved Scottish companies and certainly involved companies that will be engaged in the bids for parts of the Scottish Bus Group. What safeguards have been taken against the same thing happening in Scotland? The answer in simple terms is, none. The Minister said that there were four options, but did not tell us which one the Government had decided to implement. Perhaps he could help us on that.
Unless there are safeguards in the Bill, there will be asset stripping and property rip-offs on a grand scale. In many parts of Scotland bus stations that are centrally located in the interests of the travelling public will be sold by property speculators and will be replaced by facilities that are much less adequate arid less convenient. That is exactly what has happened in Southampton where, in spite of all the professional advice, the Government committed an offence against the public purse for which they should still be held accountable.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 109, Noes 184.

Division No. 104]
[7.16 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Cohen, Harry


Alton, David
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Corbett, Robin


Beckett, Margaret
Corbyn, Jeremy


Beith, A. J.
Cox, Tom


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Cryer, Bob


Bermingham, Gerald
Cummings, John


Blunkett, David
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Boateng, Paul
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Bradley, Keith
Dewar, Donald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dixon, Don


Buchan, Norman
Doran, Frank


Buckley, George J.
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Caborn, Richard
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Eastham, Ken


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Clay, Bob
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Clelland, David
Fisher, Mark






Flannery, Martin
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Flynn, Paul
Marek, Dr John


Foster, Derek
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Fyfe, Maria
Maxton, John


Galbraith, Sam
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Galloway, George
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Morgan, Rhodri


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mullin, Chris


Gordon, Mildred
Murphy, Paul


Graham, Thomas
O'Neill, Martin


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Patchett, Terry


Hardy, Peter
Pike, Peter L.


Henderson, Doug
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hood, Jimmy
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Reid, Dr John


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Richardson, Jo


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Robertson, George


Ingram, Adam
Short, Clare


Janner, Greville
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Steinberg, Gerry


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Strang, Gavin


Kennedy, Charles
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Wall, Pat


Lamond, James
Wareing, Robert N.


Leadbitter, Ted
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


McAllion, John
Wigley, Dafydd


McAvoy, Thomas
Wilson, Brian


McCartney, Ian
Young, David (Bolton SE)


McFall, John


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Tellers for the Ayes:


McKelvey, William
Mr. Frank Cook and


McWilliam, John
Mr. Frank Haynes.


Madden, Max


NOES


Alexander, Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dover, Den


Amess, David
Dunn, Bob


Amos, Alan
Durant, Tony


Arbuthnot, James
Evennett, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Favell, Tony


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Ashby, David
Fishburn, John Dudley


Atkins, Robert
Fookes, Dame Janet


Batiste, Spencer
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bellingham, Henry
Forth, Eric


Bendall, Vivian
Franks, Cecil


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Freeman, Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gale, Roger


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gill, Christopher


Brazier, Julian
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bright, Graham
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gow, Ian


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burns, Simon
Gregory, Conal


Butcher, John
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Butler, Chris
Grist, Ian


Butterfill, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carttiss, Michael
Hanley, Jeremy


Cash, William
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Chapman, Sydney
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Chope, Christopher
Harris, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hayes, Jerry


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushclifie)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hayward, Robert


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cope, Rt Hon John
Heddle, John


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hill, James


Day, Stephen
Hind, Kenneth


Devlin, Tim
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Dorrell, Stephen
Howard, Michael





Howarth, Alan (Stratd-on-A)
Renton, Tim


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Riddick, Graham


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hunter, Andrew
Sackville, Hon Tom


Irvine, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Irving, Charles
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jack, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Janman, Tim
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Speller, Tony


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Knowles, Michael
Stern, Michael


Lang, Ian
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lawrence, Ivan
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lightbown, David
Summerson, Hugo


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lord, Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Miller, Sir Hal
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mills, Iain
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Th urn ham, Peter


Mitchell, Sir David
Tracey, Richard


Monro, Sir Hector
Tredinnick, David


Moore, Rt Hon John
Trippier, David


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Morrison, Sir Charles
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Moss, Malcolm
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Walden, George


Mudd, David
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Nelson, Anthony
Waller, Gary


Neubert, Michael
Ward, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wells, Bowen


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wheeler, John


Norris, Steve
Whitney, Ray


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Widdecombe, Ann


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wiggin, Jerry


Page, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Paice, James
Wilshire, David


Patnick, Irvine
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Winterton, Nicholas


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wolfson, Mark


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wood, Timothy


Portillo, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Powell, William (Corby)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Price, Sir David


Raffan, Keith
Tellers for the Noes:


Rathbone, Tim
Mr. Michael Fallon and


Redwood, John
Mr. David Maclean.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 6 in page 2, line 5, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.—[Mr. Wilson.]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I regard the amendment, which would replace "may" with "shall", as a Willie Ross amendment. As Opposition Members have pointed out, Lord Ross of Marnock frequently tabled such amendments. It is also fair to say of Lord Ross that he was almost always able to say no to such amendments, although on one occasion I persuaded him to say yes. If hon. Members wish to know the example, let me say that a pop group wished to apply for a licence to practise in America, and they had to get the licence from the Bow street magistrates court in London. I suggested that it would be better if they could acquire it in Scotland and he replied that he would lay an order so that they would have to go to the stipendiary magisrates in Glasgow.
I have to tell the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) that I have considered the amendment carefully. I explained in Committee that I did not think that the amendment was necessary and that it was our


intention to include in the disposal programme a statement of the general approach which the Secretary of State intends that the group should adopt in carrying out the disposals in the programme, including the intended timetable for implementing the programme. As it is our intention that the disposal programme should contain a statement of the general approach which the Secretary of State intends that the group should adopt, I am prepared to accept the amendment, which would require the Secretary of State to do that.
I am therefore happy to accept the amendment. I hope that this is helpful, although it is far from being the case that I wish to tread in the inimitable footsteps of the late Willie Ross.

Mr. Wilson: I do not want to let the amendment pass without some acknowledgement. This is the first crumb that we have been given in the entire passage of the Bill and I should accept it gracefully. Perhaps if I keep my speeches short on the amendments we shall receive more concessions.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7

TRANSFER OF SHIPPING COMPANIES

Mr. Wilson: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 5, line 3, after 'in', insert 'and remain with'.
I shall adopt the same formula for this small amendment, which takes us on to the part of the Bill dealing with Caledonian MacBrayne. At present, the ownership of Caledonian MacBrayne rests with the Secretary of State and that should be perpetuated in another form under the Bill. It is not necessary to say more than that.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The aim of the amendment is to require the ownership of Caledonian MacBrayne to remain with the Secretary of State.
It might be helpful if I set out our policy towards shipping services to the Western Isles. We are committed to maintaining at least the present standard of service. This is a standard which has been substantially improved since we came to office. Our manifesto commitment was
to continue the substantially increased financial support for the provision and upgrading of ferries and terminals which are so vital to the islands".
The evidence of that commitment is in the new ships and piers and substantially improved facilities.
In the light of the dissolution of the transport group, of which Caledonian MacBrayne is part, the Secretary of State decided, having examined the options carefully, that the best arrangement was for Caledonian MacBrayne to become a company owned, in the first instance, by the Secretary of State. He will be appointing a new board for the company, which will be asked to examine carefully existing practices in order to find more efficient and cost-effective ways of delivering the present standard of service. The Secretary of State said that no options for the longer term would be excluded, subject of course to the overriding proviso that they must ensure at least the present quality of service to the islands.
Having set out the background and our commitment to services, it would be odd to specify in statute that a company transferred to the Secretary of State should

remain with him in perpetuity. Within the context of looking for better value for money, we do not know what arrangements might be proposed by the board, always subject to the overriding proviso of maintaining at least the present quality of service. We want to avoid limitations on arrangements which might be in the best interests of the islands, which will always remain the touchstone of any change which is considered. An amendment of this kind would limit the range of options which the new board might want to consider.
In all this it is, of course, the service to the islands which is vitally important, and our commitment to it is clear. I ask the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Wilson: I only partially stated what the amendment was about and the Minister is right that, in addition to recognising the reality that control rests with the Secretary of State, it looks into the future. It seeks to legislate against the possibility of a change of ownership. On those grounds, the Opposition are disappointed that the Minister will not accept the amendment. Perhaps that gives something away about the Government's long-term thinking. However, we have seen off threats to Caledonian MacBrayne before and we shall see them off again.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Wilson: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 5, line 11, at end insert—
'(4A) The Secretary of State shall ensure that the interests of travellers, local people and employees are given representation equal to that of commercial and management interests on the Board of Caledonian MacBrayne Limited.'.
We now come to a more substantial debate on Caledonian MacBrayne and the shipping aspects of the Bill. We have centred the debate round the composition of the board. Although we suspect that the Government would like to do much to Caledonian MacBrayne, the only substantial aspect of the Bill that identifies that company's prospects deals with the creation and composition of a board.
We propose—one might think eminently reasonably—that the interests of travellers, local people and employees should be given equal representation with commercial and management interests on the board. Put in another way, we might call this the NTS amendment. While considering the Bill, we have had to put up with a great many initials such as STG and SDG, and abbreviations such as CalMac. NTS stands, quite simply, for "no Tory sinecures."
We are concerned that the board, which will be crucial to the future of Caledonian MacBrayne and the shipping services on the west coast of Scotland, will be perverted from the start by the sort of political appointments that are increasingly permeating and corrupting public life in Scotland. People with no qualifications, other than a party-political allegiance to Scotland's minority party—the Tory party—are appointed to every board and quango in sight. If that happens with Caledonian MacBrayne's new board, it is certain that the wishes of the people of the west coast communities served by the company will not be respected.
I pointed out in Committee the extraordinary fact that it is now possible to travel from Muckle Flugga to the Mull of Kintyre—the length of the highlands and islands of


Scotland—without encountering territory that is represented by a Tory Member. On the 28 routes covered by Caledonian MacBrayne, at no time does one of its vessels call at a port represented by a Tory Member of Parliament.
The reality of politics in Scotland and, more recently, in the areas that this company has served is that the Tories are completely unelectable at local or national level in the west coast areas of Scotland. That is a remarkable fact and, even within my relatively short political lifetime, it represents a remarkable change. Some of the people who have helped to bring it about are here this evening. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) for having put the last piece in the jigsaw to make the highlands and islands a Tory-free zone—and all the better for it. We do not want any of these rejected people or their allies to be brought back to life in a new form.
As was noted in earlier debates, the former Member of this House who represented the constituency of Cunninghame, North before I was elected in June 1987 has already been found a nice little earner as chairman of the Scottish transport users consultative committee. That precedent makes us suspicious about what sort of clapped-out Tory rejects will be put on the board of Caledonian MacBrayne.
Shortly before Christmas, when the privatisation threat still hung over Caledonian MacBrayne, there was a meeting in Oban at which genuine, concerned representatives of our communities came together from all over the west coast. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute and I were both in attendance, as were about 80 people, united in their opposition to privatisation, because they knew what it would mean for the shipping services on which they depended. They were excellent people who were very representative of our communities and any number of them would have made good members of Caledonian MacBrayne's new board.
For the record, at that meeting just two voices were raised in favour of privatisation. One was that of a Tory councillor from West Kilbride, which, as I pointed out in Committee, is not one of the great nautical centres of the west coast. The other was a British publican from Port Askaig who gave the strong impression of being his own best customer. That was the level of support for privatisation within the community that is served by Caledonian MacBrayne. However, there is no guarantee that those two people, and the other 78 people, will not end up on the board of Caledonian MacBrayne. We shall watch events extremely closely. Again we shall make the Tories pay the political penalty if they try any such tricks.
An arrogance is abroad—led, I think, by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)—that makes Scottish Office Tories believe that they can do literally what they like. There is a real touch of the gauleiter about them. They have no electoral base, but they believe that they can carry on as though elections had never taken place and as though they will never take place again. Their cockiness might be justified for the time being, but elections will take place again—assuming that the hon. Member for Stirling does not gain even more influence. At that time, for each of these actions against the wishes and interests of the Scottish people, the Tories will again be made to pay the electoral price. At the moment they nurse the hope of regaining some of the lost lands of the highlands and

islands, so in their own political self-interest, as well as in the interests of the people of the highlands and islands, the last thing that they ought to do is to make appointments that would grossly offend those people.
Control of Caledonian MacBrayne is now in the hands of the board of the Scottish Transport Group, which is primarily concerned with bus operations. The board has adopted a hands-off attitude, but that will change. When a board is appointed for the new company, Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd., the question of who the board members are will become relevant.
Lip service has been paid to the notion of islanders being appointed to the board, but I am sure that the Minister recognises that there are islanders and islanders. There are people who have committed their life's work to the island communities that are served by Caledonian MacBrayne and there are others who regard the islands as places to which to go for the occasional highland gathering and the subsequent ball. For instance, they have given Mull the nickname "the officers' mess". We do not want a retired colonel who has set himself up as a mini-laird on one of the islands to be appointed to the board. We do not recognise such people as islanders. What is even more important, the people who live on the islands do not recognise them as islanders.
I know that the Minister has family experience of the kind of appointment that I am talking about. I am sure that he realises that people on the islands are well able to differentiate between those who have a long-term commitment to the islands and those who regard them as an outpost of empire where, preferably, the peasantry ought to be treated as the peasantry of the outposts of empire were once treated. We want those who genuinely represent the folk who travel on the ferries, live in the island communities and work on the ferry services to sit on the board. They would make sound, rational decisions that were motivated by social concern for the communities and by knowledge of local needs.
We have noted at each stage of the Bill that the composition of the board of CalMac will be particularly important early in its life. It has been given two immediate remits by the Secretary of State. We have been told that the new board will be asked to decide on the location of the headquarters of Caledonian MacBrayne. I am pleased to say that in recent weeks the Opposition's views on this matter have become quite clear. We have considered the question of the transfer of the headquarters of Caledonian MacBrayne and we do not like it one little bit. We believe that relocation is a ridiculous requirement to impose on an area where unemployment stands at 27 per cent. It would be an unnecessary burden on the public purse if a new headquarters had to be built in Oban, or anywhere else.
Folk should not be uprooted and disturbed in that way, particularly when no ostensible benefit to the travelling public would be gained. The majority of the travelling public will be at the end of a long-distance telephone call, irrespective of where the headquarters of Caledonian MacBrayne is located. I speak only for my own party when I say that we are firmly against the removal of the CalMac headquarters from Gourock to anywhere else.
7.45 pm
To hark back to the days when David MacBrayne Ltd. was privatised, it is worth remembering that there was an even more complex MacBrayne network of ferry services on the west coast of Scotland. The headquarters of David


MacBrayne Ltd. was not in the community that was served by the company. It was in Robertson street, Glasgow. There is a lot of sense in saying that the headquarters of a widely dispersed shipping company should be close to the centre from which many of the services and many of the passengers emanate.
What we as politicians say about that is not the most important aspect. What the people who live in the island communities and who work for the company say is much more important. We do not want a board to be set up that has been told by the Secretary of State to go down a certain road. We want that board to be representative of the communities, to participate in rational debate, to look sympathetically at the interests of employees—as well as at a political wheeze from the Secretary of State—and come to a rational decision.
We have also been told that the new board will be asked to adjudicate at an early stage on the selling off of two routes on the Clyde—Dunoon to Gourock and Wemyss bay to Rothesay. The location of Caledonian MacBrayne's headquarters is more a matter of judgment than politics, but there is no doubt that there is a political aspect to the question of whether those two routes should be sold off.
The experience of the last nine years while this has been a matter of live debate has shown that it will be very difficult to get any CalMac board that has any contact with the communities served by the company to assent to such a proposition.. If the Secretary of State is to obtain the sell-offs that he hankers after, he will achieve them only by putting on the board the placemen and Tory lackeys whom we fear so much. All the power of argument is against the break-up of the network and the selling off of these routes. The economic argument is against it.
If routes are taken out of a subsidised network, the last ones to be taken out are the ones that are the most economically viable—as the Clyde routes are. In that case, either one increases the need for public subsidy of the remaining routes or one reduces the level of services on the remaining routes; they will not have the weighting factor of the relatively good financial performance on the more profitable routes. The economic argument for taking these two routes away from CalMac is completely discredited.
As for the integration of routes and services, the great strength of Caledonian MacBrayne on the west coast of Scotland is its ability to move vessels from one route to another to cover breakdowns, annual overhauls and refits. It is able to co-ordinate timetables and everything else that is connected with the complex Caledonian MacBrayne operation. The strength of integration extends to the booking system. People who are visiting the area can book their way through the Hebrides, across the Clyde, back into Argyll and out again to the Inner Hebrides. All of that is possible with the sophisticated computer-based booking network operated from Gourock. If the Government start playing about by taking loops out of the network and handing them over to some other operator they will lose that advantage as well.
Once again the big argument against privatising these routes is that the people who live in the communities served by them do not want them to be privatised. They made that clear in 1981, when the Government had to retreat in a state of some disarray from the proposal to privatise the Gourock to Dunoon route. I have no evidence to suggest that opinion in Gourock and Dunoon

has changed. Equally, I have no doubt that the Government would meet with equally fierce opposition in Wemyss bay and Rothesay.
I might say that both Renfrew, West and In% erclyde and Argyll and Bute, the two constituencies affected by these proposals, are Labour-held marginals. If the Minister wants to ensure larger Labour majorities, I suppose that is one good reason for proceeding with these proposals. But we do not look at these things from a short-term, narrow political standpoint; we look at them from the point of view of the public good. No one wants the Minister's lousy privatisation ideas, and he really should accept that.
The Government have been messing about with this for eight years—confusing and annoying people. They really should go away and do something useful. Their dreadful persistence is an obsession, I think. There must be somewhere in Scotland, some subscriber to Tory funds who is obsessed with the idea of taking over the Clyde shipping services. That is the only possible explanation of the Government's preoccupation with such a relatively minor matter. We do not want these people on the new board of Caledonian MacBrayne either.
There is a clear warning here. Make it a board that is representative of local interests, make it a board that is sensitive to the wishes of the travelling public, and we will welcome it, the people of the communities served will welcome it, and there will be no dispute. But make it another of these nasty little coteries of Tories, appointed on the basis of an old boys' or old girls' network, and further opprobrium will be heaped upon the Scottish Tories—and I should have thought they had enough opprobrium to be going on with without inviting more.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have a continuing constituency interest in Caledonian MacBrayne in terms of both direct and indirect employment. I take it that the reference in the amendment to employees includes those currently employed by the company. That being the case, may I make a plea on behalf of my constituents who find their employment by way of Caledonian MacBrayne. Incidentally, in this context the Lord of the Isles, a Caledonian MacBrayne ferry, is to be launched from Fergusons in Port Glasgow on 7 March. I believe that the vessel will be launched into the Clyde by a lady by the name of Mrs. Edith Rifkind. I have certainly got the good lady's surname right, if not her first name, though I think that, too, is correct.
The object of this amendment is to
ensure that the interests of travellers, local people and employees are given representation equal to that of commercial and management interests on the board of Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd.
In my view, representatives of local people, present employees and travellers will be most anxious to ensure that orders for new vessels are placed with Scottish shipyards.
I make no apology for making a special plea here in the context of the purchasing power that this new board will have, especially for ferries. Scotland's merchant shipbuilding capability has been considerably reduced. We now have, on the merchant shipbuilding side, Fergusons, Hall Russell of Aberdeen, which, I believe, has finally been purchased in the past few days, the Norwegian firm on the upper Clyde, Kvaerner, and Caledonian MacBrayne.
The new board that is to be set up will need to order upwards of a dozen vessels over the next decade. That may


be within one or two of the figure currently in the company's estimates. I think I am right in saying that the plum order will be the replacement vessel for the Suilven, which plies between Ullapool and Stornoway. The present vessel is very old as ships go. It is not up to the job, although it is crewed and officered magnificently. It has to be replaced within the next three years. I sincerely hope that the new board—made up, as it would be if this amendment were accepted, of, amongst others, representatives of local people, travellers and present-day employees—will ensure that that contract is awarded to a certain yard on the lower Clyde, Fergusons of Port Glasgow.
Local employment in Inverclyde would be helped immeasurably by such contracts. It would be tragic locally if the Scottish shipbuilding dimension were ignored in the scheme of things by this new company. The kind of board that my hon. Friends envisage would ensure that Scottish shipyards, in their present parlous condition, were not ignored.
To move the headquarters of this company from Gourock, if it were not a local disaster, would at least cause dismay amongst many of my constituents, who either work directly for the company or obtain their work by way of the company.
On 3 March the Secretary of State will formally initiate the Inverclyde enterprise zone. I think the ceremony is to be conducted in the municipal buildings in Greenock. I have been invited to the ceremony, and I take it that my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew and Inverclyde, West (Mr. Graham) has also been invited.

Mr. Graham: No.

Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend says that he has not been invited. I find that utterly surprising, and not right or proper.
If, the Inverclyde enterprise zone having been set up, the headquarters is to be transferred to Oban, the people I represent will be deeply unhappy. In saying that, I mean no disrespect to the good people of Oban, but it seems sensible, in the light of the setting up of the Inverclyde initiative, that the headquarters of this company should remain in Gourock. I understand that in Oban there are few houses for rent or sale. I am told also that there is a major problem in acquiring suitable premises and that there are certain skill shortages in the area.

Mrs. Ray Michie: I should be most interested if the hon. Gentleman could tell the House from where he got his information.

Dr. Godman: I shall be perfectly happy to tell the hon. Lady, who, of course, has a deep interest in this matter. I think that she welcomes the transfer of this headquarters—and there we part company. I have been told by employees of the company—

Mrs. Michie: In Gourock?

Dr. Godman: Yes, of course. I have been told by employees of the company that that may well be the case in Oban and its surrounding areas.

Mr. Graham: I have received letters from constituents who work at the CalMac headquarters who have found

that there is a problem with, for example, housing and education provision for the mentally handicapped. I am sure that my hon. Friend has similar information.

Dr. Godman: I do not see why the lives of the fine, decent and honourable employees at Gourock should be disrupted so dreadfully by the move, or why they should be dismissed and receive paltry redundancy pay. It is essential that CalMac retains its headquarters at Gourock. It is essential that the new board has the composition which the amendment envisages and that it accepts the need to protect the interests of travellers, employees and those who work in Hall Russell and Fergusons in Port Glasgow.
In view of the establishment of an Inverclyde enterprise zone, it makes sense for the new board of the new company to place orders for vessels with those two local shipyards. I do not want orders to be placed elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and certainly not overseas. Orders should go to Scottish shipyards. The Minister should give employees at Gourock an assurance that the headquarters will stay in Gourock and that their employment opportunities will not be threatened. The Minister is an honourable man: he should accept this honourable amendment.

8 pm

Mr. Graham: The Minister knows my feelings about the Government's proposals. I fully support the amendment. I am extremely worried by what the Secretary of State for Scotland said on Second Reading. Introducing the Bill, he said:
I intend to appoint a new board for the company, which will contain persons with commercial expertise, including some with first—hand knowledge of the islands served and their needs. That is vital to ensure the responsiveness of the company to its customers. As a matter of priority, I would look to the new board to examine the possibilities of relocating the headquarters nearer the centre of the area which it serves. Oban seems likely to prove a suitable place for this purpose. I shall also ask the new board to explore the possibility of transferring to the private sector the Gourock-Dunoon and Wemyss bay-Rothesay routes."—[Official Report, 14 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 980.]
It is imperative that any board should be able to do its job and not have the Secretary of State's hammer at its head and be told that it must consider moving from Gourock to Oban.
What type of board are the Government setting up? Is it a board of donkeys which nods in the direction of what the Secretary of State requires? That would be disgraceful. A board should be able to look at the books and enhance the company's operations. It is incredible that the Government should tell it to privatise the Gourock-Dunoon route. That is nonsense. It is a profit-making run which could make more profit if the company was allowed to run as a free commercial enterprise like companies up the road. The Government put restrictions on CalMac's operations. Allowed to operate freely, the company would produce far more profit.
The same can be said of the Wemyss bay-Rothesay route. Restrictions imposed by the Government ensure that CalMac does not produce profit sufficient to reduce its subsidy. It is lamentable that the Secretary of State made an announcement about the board without describing the CalMac operation.
The review of accounts says:


Caledonian MacBrayne continue to go from strength to strength. There has been a remarkable growth of traffic over the years reaching record levels in 1987 and more than justifying a sustained substantial programme of investment in ships, piers and passenger facilities generally. The Company's contribution to the prosperity and well-being of the island communities is further secured and strengthened by an aggressive marketing policy which is targeted successfully.
Mr. Ian Irwin, CBE, chairman and chief executive of the Scottish Transport Group, has said:
Caledonian MacBrayne is now bearing the fruits of the careful planning, investment and aggressive marketing of the last decade. The company has had its best year ever with record passenger carryings and a refund of subsidy to the Secretary of State for Scotland for the second year running (£1·3 million in 1987 and £0·7 million in 1986).

Dr. Godman: May I observe that I have some criticisms of the present board, one of which is that too often it has ordered ships furth of Scotland?

Mr. Graham: A board has to examine books and make value judgments. I can show clearly that CalMac has worked hard for the people of the islands and its customers.
The headquarters in Gourock has one of the finest staff. They can be held up as an example of workers who have dedicated themselves to the company for which they work. Their record is one of the finest. They are not working in a Para Handy outfit. They work for a shipping company with 28 ships. In the headquarters, the company has one of the largest computer operations in the west of Scotland. It is served by trained, knowledgeable and dedicated staff. There are engineering workshops and bakeries, for example, adjacent to the headquarters—they help to keep costs down.
The company owns the headquarters and the workshops. It is based on the Clyde. The managing director has said quite clearly—and the Minister knows it—that he thinks that a move to Oban would be commercially unsound. He has done an assessment of the work force, 90 per cent. of whom say that they do not want to move to Oban.
I have spoken to the workers and they are extremely unhappy. The board has to be caring. It should consider the views of the workers and the islanders.
I have shown, through the people who have been operating the company successfully, that the workers are an excellent band of people who will continue to strive to enable the company to grow from strength to strength. The board must face the possibility that, because of the Secretary of State's hammer hanging over the company, 90 people could be thrown on to the scrap heap. That might happen in an area with one of the highest unemployment records, not just in Scotland, but in Britain. Why should they be thrown on the scrap heap simply because the Secretary of State wishes to move the headquarters to Oban?
Moving to Oban is not commercially sound. It will not help to reduce costs; it will probably increase them. A burden will he imposed on Oban if the workers decide to move. Will the poor be given homes? Will the 18-year-old girl who has written to me be guaranteed a house? Will the woman who has written to me and who has a mentally handicapped son receive the same services as she receives in my constituency? I do not believe so. With the best will in the world, the services cannot be provided.
The Oban area has its own housing problems and homeless people. I am not an expert on Oban, but I know

my constituency. I know the workers in Gourock who work for Caledonian MacBrayne. I have met them. They want to continue to work. They do not want to go on the dole. They want to continue to work for CalMac, as they have done for many years.

Dr. Godman: There is another element to the proposed transfer to Oban, and it relates to the objectives of the Inverclyde initiative and, presumably, the Inverclyde enterprise zone. Those objectives are concerned with reviving the largely dying waterfront of Greenock and Port Glasgow. In that context, would it not be absurd to dampen down Gourock by such a transfer?

Mr. Graham: My hon. Friend is right. The board must look at the Inverclyde enterprise zone. Businesses could be set up in the area to help reduce the subsidies. It would help ensure that CalMac continued to grow from strength to strength.
I hope that the Secretary of State will not continue to dangle the sword of Damocles over the head of the workers. This is a blatant act of piracy, not on the high seas but in high places. Decisions will be made by people who are remote from the workers. I hope that the board will reflect the views of the workers and that it will not consist of people in remote high places.
I hope that the Secretary of State will bear in mind the fact that those workers have worked to ensure that the 28 ships remain at sea and that there is adequate clerical and administrative back-up. More than 800 people are employed by CalMac and the 100 workers in question wish to continue to be employed there. I plead with the Minister to allow them the right to work in Gourock. They should not be thrown on the dole queues. He should give them that right. Through their work they have allowed CalMac to sail the seas and service the islands. He should allow them to continue to work and he should stand up and fight for the CalMac workers.

Mrs. Ray Michie: The amendment is similar to one I tabled in Committee which was rejected by the Minister. I hope that he will accept this amendment, which I support. I have reiterated on many occasions how important it is that the new board reflects the wishes of local people and employees. The membershitp should consist of people mainly from the islands and the mainland ports from which CalMac sails. It is important to have a membership representing Dunoon and Rothesay. Those are the two routes that the Government have, unwisely, put under threat. It is essential that the views of the people in those areas be properly reflected.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) say that the Labour party is in favour of Caledonian MacBrayne's headquarters remaining in Gourock. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) is not present because he never said whether he would be in favour of the headquarters moving to the Western Isles, which is the wish of his council. Therefore, perhaps the Labour party is not in full agreement on that subject.
I can fully understand the wish of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) to defend his constituents and their jobs. I have already told the hon. Gentleman that the local Social and Liberal Democrats on the council are concerned about the people in the area. I


have also said that, should there be a move, "hope that the Secretary of State will give every possible help to anybody who has to move. However, I do not believe that any Member of Parliament would turn down the opportunity of jobs coming to his or her constituency.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mrs. Michie: I will not give way. I want to develop this point a little further.

Mr. Graham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have already told the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) that I have no wish to take jobs from her constituents.

Mrs. Michie: Hon. Members should understand that no hon. Member lifted a finger to stop Argyll and Bute losing jobs. We have lost a considerable number of jobs in the Health Service and in the social work department, which has been removed from my constituency and centralised in places such as Dumbarton and Paisley. Nobody said how terrible that was. They said that it was great that the department should move to somewhere such as Paisley. I am interested to know also how often the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Michie: I am interested to know how often the hon. Gentleman has travelled on Caledonian MacBrayne ferries and where he goes when he travels on them.

Mr. Graham: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Michie: Yes, I shall be interested to hear the answer.

Mr. Graham: I have travelled frequently on Caledonian MacBrayne ferries and on many of its routes. I have travelled from Gourock to Wemyss bay, from Gourock to Dunoon and from Wemyss Bay to Bute. I have travelled on nearly all the Shetland ferries.

Mrs. Michie: I am interested to hear that. There are ferries to Gourock, Wemyss Bay, and Rothesay. What about Coll, Tiree, Colonsay Stornoway and other ports?
I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but he does Oban a gross disservice when he talks about the lack of facilities there and most especially when he talks about the lack of facilities for mentally handicapped children and adults in the area. It is quite wrong that he should say such things without any knowledge of the excellent facilities available in the Oban area.
Much has been made of the great computer that works so efficiently in Gourock. I am sure that it does work reasonably efficiently.

Mr. Graham: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Michie: No, because I want to develop my argument about the computer in Gourock. Some hon. Members should speak to constituents outwith Gourock and ask them how many times the computer has double-booked them, how many times they have received their first-choice railings and how many times what is said on the computer in Gourock is the same as is said on a

computer in another part of Caledonian MacBrayne. They are often saying completely different things, so we must find out just how wonderful this computer is.
I say to the Minister again that we must have not just an assurance, but words written into the Bill that will ensure that the people of the islands and the mainland ports are given majority representation so that they can reflect the needs of the islanders especially.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall first answer the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) who raised an important point about orders with Scottish shipyards. I am glad to confirm that the last two ships built for CalMac—the Isle of Mull and one to be launched next week—were both built in Scottish yards. CalMac places orders where it obtains the best value for money and, obviously, it is extremely happy to place orders in Scottish yards. That has been a policy in the past, and will, no doubt, continue to be its policy.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) asked about the profitability of the Gourock-Dunoon route. That route is not profitable as it is operated at present. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State spelt out the anomaly of an unsubsidised private sector crossing competing with a subsidised private sector crossing on similar routes and he chose his words carefully on Second Reading when he said that the board would look at the possibilities in this connection.

Dr. Godman: In relation to the Ullapool and Stornoway service, has the Minister any idea when an order is likely to be placed for a replacement vessel for the Suilven?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are having a wide debate, but we must have some regard for the terms of the amendment.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on that point.
On relief vessels, it was suggested that if the three ships that operate the Gourock-Dunoon and Wemyss bayRothesay services were transferred to the private sector, CalMac would not be able to provide relief vessels in cases of breakdown. I can assure the House that that is not the case. The three ships concerned cannot operate outside the Clyde, and relief arrangements for the Western Isles will be unaffected. The island service can, at present, draw on the Jupiter or the main CalMac relief vessel in case of breakdown. The capacity of the Jupiter, however, is significantly less than that of the Isle of Arran and of the main relief vessel the Glen Sannox, which will still be available.
I understand the passions that the siting of the headquarters has raised and I listened with care to the remarks of the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham). I respect the representations made on behalf of their constituents. The reason why my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will be asking that the new board should consider the best location for its headquarters is that he believes that it is right that the headquarters should be nearer the centre of the area that they serve. My right hon. and learned Friend said that he thought Oban would be likely to prove the most suitable place. Obviously, the new board will look at the issue


carefully and will take into account the interest of employees. It is worth considering carefully whether moving the headquarters would improve the service to the islands.

Mr. Graham: The logic of the Minister's remarks does not meet the eye. Does he mean that everything will be moved into Glasgow because it is the centre of population in Scotland? I cannot understand his logic because in that case, all kinds of businesses should settle in Glasgow. Surely the Minister is not saying that that is how businesses should operate. The managing director has said that there is nothing the matter with the CalMac operation in Gourock, so to move to Oban makes commercial nonsense. Surely the Minister must listen to the man in the driving seat.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If the headquarters move to Oban, they will be nearer to the centre of operations for the lifeline services to the islands concerned. The points that the hon. Gentleman makes on behalf of his constituents and the workshops and the other evidence that he puts forward will, of course, be taken into account. But it is important to bear in mind the commercial aspects of CalMac's operations and the fact that the jobs in question will be relocated, not lost to Scotland.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute asked me about members on the CalMac board from Rothesay and Dunoon. The Clyde shipping services advisory committee has two members from Rothesay and a member from Dunoon. That shows how the shipping services advisory committees are the best way in which interests can be involved. When my right hon. and learned Friend announced that a new board would be appointed for CalMac, he said that it would contain people with commercial expertise, including some with first-hand knowledge of the island and their needs. We discussed the composition of the board in greater detail in Committee and I gave an undertaking that we would look for persons with first-hand knowledge of the islands among those who are resident in the islands. We should not see the new board of CalMac as divided into those who have commercial or shipping experience and those who know about the islands. I hope that the persons appointed will combine as many qualifications as possible. We do not want the board to be divided into two camps. Our aim is to have a board that has both the necessary expertise and is responsive to the needs of the travellers who use the service.
Amendment No. 16 suggests that those on board should in some way be there to represent a single interest or qualification. Under the amendment, persons would have to be appointed in relation to a particular interest. That might make the task of appointment more difficult, especially with a small board. For those reasons I ask the House to reject the amendment. In doing so, I remind hon. Members of the other arrangments that exist to represent consumers' interests, such as the transport users consultative committee for Scotland which will continue to have a remit covering CalMac. The committee contains two island residents from Arran, and one from Lewis. The shipping services advisory committees will also continue. Each of the three advisory committees contains substantial representation from the islands and the travelling public.
With those three committees, it is possible to have much more extensive island representation than on a small board.
The advisory committees will continue to be consulted by the board of CalMac as before and I hope that that demonstrates to the House the machinery that will continue to exist for responding to the views of the travelling public and those residents in the islands. In the light of that and my description of how we shall approach board appointments, I hope that I have reassured the House that the new board will be responsive to local needs. I therefore ask the House to reject amendment No. 16.

Mr. Wilson: I am sure that I speak on behalf of all Opposition Members when I say that we are not reassured. Indeed, we shall be reassured only when we see the names of the people who have been appointed to the new board and when we have had a little time to study their biographies.
8.30 pm
I object to the distinction that the Minister just drew when he suggested that the natives can travel steerage on the consultative committees while a different breed of person will be appointed to the bridge and be members of the small board. That happens at present in other organisations, especially in the Highlands and Islands development board. It is almost unique for anyone who comes from or lives or works within its area, to be appointed to that board. The other organisation is the Highlands and Islands development consultative council, which is where the local representatives are herded and, supposedly, consulted.
The amendment calls for local people to be represented at first-class rather than third-class level. We are concerned about the board and we shall be keeping a close eye on its membership. Although we cannot take this further tonight, I warn the Minister that if he refuses to take heed of what is said and if he appoints people only because they can be relied on to represent the Tory interest, this will be another little problem that will dog him for the rest of this Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) suggested bringing back Mrs. McCurley. As has already been said, Mr. Corrie has already been brought back in a closely related role. One of my colleagues in Committee suggested that Mr. J. J. MacKay of blessed memory, whom the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) replaced, might fancy a nice little earner as chairman of the CalMac board, which would keep his connections with Argyll and Bute. I am sure that the work of organising the small band of Scottish Tories cannot be so onerous that he would not have the time to do that on the side. All those names have been bandied around, and I have mentioned one or two possibilities. They will be queuing up already because in such circles they know when jobs for the boys are being handed out, and there will be a few applicants for this one.

Dr. Godman: We can hardly blame those Tory discards for their interest. Mrs. McCurley, for example, has been given a part-time appointment with the Horserace Betting Levy Board. The new board may well be made up largely of Tory discards.

Mr. Wilson: That is the risk that we are trying to spotlight. I am sure that Mrs. McCurley will be as much an expert on horse racing and levies as most of the possible contenders for this board are on ferries.
People in the areas served by the ferries can see through what is happening. I have no doubt that if the Government appoint political nominees, they will continue to pay the political price.
I shall deal briefly with the two central questions raised by the Minister—the Gourock-Dunoon service and the location of the headquarters. I can assure the Minister that I know that the Gourock-Dunoon route is not profitable. Indeed, I did not say that it was profitable, but that it is less unprofitable than most other routes and that is a significant difference, especially in a company that is based on subsidy. If one takes out the less loss-making routes, one must increase the subsidy to those that make greater losses otherwise they will suffer a diminution of service. That is the straightforward economic argument against privatising the Clyde routes.
The Minister is also wrong in his rebuttal of my point about the movement of vessels among the various routes. It is true that the three ships that serve the Gourock-Dunoon and Wemyss bay routes cannot operate outside the Clyde, but if called upon ships that operate outside the Clyde can operate on the Gourock-Dunoon and Wemyss bay routes, as can ships that operate on the other Clyde routes. If one takes those two routes away from the CalMac network, that degree of flexibility will be lost.
I have absolutely no difficulty with the position of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute on the question of moving the headquarters. She was offered what appeared to be something on a plate for one part of her constituency. She is entitled to fight for that and to support it. However, I thought at the start that she was a little incautious to do so because other parts of her constituency will be less well served. As she recognised in Committee, the idea of moving the headquarters from Gourock to Oban is predicated on the assumption that the Gourock-Dunoon and Wemyss bay-Rothesay routes would be taken out of the CalMac network. As I do not intend that to happen, I do not think that the proposal about moving the headquarters gets past first base.
Although I cannot answer for my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), who is not in the Chamber tonight, I do not think that the idea of moving to Stornoway is particularly sound, if only because there might be some difficulty about Sunday bookings.
Those arguments lie ahead. The main thing now is to get the board right. Although we can take that no further tonight, we shall press our amendment to the vote because we believe that it is essential to put clearly on the record our belief that the board should be representative of the island interest, committed to the extension and development of Caledonian MacBrayne, and not a pathetic cipher, hand picked by the Tories to serve the Tory interest.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 100, Noes 173.

Division No. 105]
[8.36 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Beckett, Margaret


Alton, David
Beith, A. J.


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)





Blunkett, David
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Bradley, Keith
Lamond, James


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Lewis, Terry


Buchan, Norman
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Buckley, George J.
Loyden, Eddie


Caborn, Richard
McAllion, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
McAvoy, Thomas


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
McCartney, Ian


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
McFall, John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
McKelvey, William


Clay, Bob
McTaggart, Bob


Clelland, David
McWilliam, John


Cohen, Harry
Madden, Max


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Corbett, Robin
Marek, Dr John


Cox, Tom
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cryer, Bob
Martlew, Eric


Cummings, John
Maxton, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dewar, Donald
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Dixon, Don
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Doran, Frank
Morgan, Rhodri


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Mullin, Chris


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Murphy, Paul


Eastham, Ken
Patchett, Terry


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Pike, Peter L.


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Fisher, Mark
Quin, Ms Joyce


Flynn, Paul
Reid, Dr John


Foster, Derek
Short, Clare


Fyfe, Maria
Skinner, Dennis


Galbraith, Sam
Steinberg, Gerry


Galloway, George
Strang, Gavin


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Wall, Pat


Graham, Thomas
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Haynes, Frank
Wigley, Dafydd


Hood, Jimmy
Wilson, Brian


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Winnick, David


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Wray, Jimmy


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Ingram, Adam



Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Mr. Nigel Griffiths and


Kennedy, Charles
Mr. Frank Cook.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Carttiss, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cash, William


Amess, David
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Amos, Alan
Chope, Christopher


Arbuthnot, James
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Cope, Rt Hon John


Ashby, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Atkins, Robert
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Day, Stephen


Batiste, Spencer
Dorrell, Stephen


Bellingham, Henry
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bendall, Vivian
Dover, Den


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Dunn, Bob


Bottomley, Peter
Durant, Tony


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Evennett, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Brazier, Julian
Fallon, Michael


Bright, Graham
Favell, Tony


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Buck, Sir Antony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Burns, Simon
Forth, Eric


Butcher, John
Franks, Cecil


Butler, Chris
Freeman, Roger


Butterfill, John
Gale, Roger


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Gill, Christopher


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Glyn, Dr Alan






Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Norris, Steve


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Gow, Ian
Oppenheim, Phillip


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Page, Richard


Gregory, Conal
Paice, James


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Patnick, Irvine


Grist, Ian
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hamilton, Neil (Talton)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hanley, Jeremy
Price, Sir David


Hargreaves, A (B'ham H'll Gr')
Raffan, Keith


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Rathbone, Tim


Harris, David
Redwood, John


Hayes, Jerry
Riddick, Graham


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hayward, Robert
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Sackville, Hon Tom


Heddle, John
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Hill, James
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hind, Kenneth
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hordern, Sir Peter
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Howard, Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Speller, Tony


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Stern, Michael


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Hunter, Andrew
Summerson, Hugo


Irvine, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Jack, Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Janman, Tim
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Johnson Smith. Sir Geoffrey
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Thurnham, Peter


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Tracey, Richard


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Tredinnick, David


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Trippier, David


Knowles, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lawrence, Ivan
Walden, George


Lightbown, David
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Ward, John


Lord, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wells, Bowen


Miller, Sir Hal
Wheeler, John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Widdecombe, Ann


Mitchell, Sir David
Wiggin, Jerry


Monro, Sir Hector
Wilkinson, John


Moore, Rt Hon John
Wilshire, David


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Morrison, Sir Charles
Winterton, Nicholas


Moss, Malcolm
Wolfson, Mark


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Wood, Timothy


Mudd, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Nelson, Anthony



Neubert, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Nicholls, Patrick
Mr. David Maclean and


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 13

FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

Mr. Wilson: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 7, line 36, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
'(3) It shall be a condition of sale of any undertaking or part of an undertaking under the Act that there be no diminution of any concession, benefit or privilege enjoyed by—
(a) any person who is or has been employed by the Group (or any subsidiary of theirs); or
(b) a member or such a person's family.'.
Clause 13(3) states that
the disposal programme may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, include provision—

(a) for the maintenance to any extent of any concession, benefit or privilege enjoyed by—
(i) any person who is or has been employed by the Group …; or
(ii) a member of such a person's family; or
(b) for the making of arty payment or the provision of any other concession, benefit or privilege in compensation for the loss, reduction or limitation of that concession, benefit or privilege".
Our amendment would take out that wishy-washy provision.
There is a simple but revealing difference in approach between Opposition Members and Conservative Members. Opposition Members simply say that some folk have concessionary travel, principally because they, their husbands or fathers have worked for the Scottish Bus Group for many years and it should not be taken away as a result of privatisation. It is not they who are privatising, and it is not they who should lose as a result. Let us keep it simple. Part of the deal of selling the company to the private sector is that such concessions are continued. Our approach is nice and simple, honest and decent.
This clause is hedged by caveats under which the Secretary of State may see fit to include concessions as a condition of sale. If some hard-nosed man of the City says, "We do not want all these pensioners cluttering up our microbuses," that concession could disappear overnight. I should be surprised if the Secretary of State is losing any sleep over that.
It is as simple as that. There is no point in spinning out the debate. We do not want the Government to take concessions from people or their relations who have worked for the Scottish Bus Group. If he leaves the amendment intact, the Minister will earn a little respect from the Opposition. Unless it is written into the Bill, as the companies change hands and asset-strippers and speculators get their hands on them, there will be no place for concessions. There will be places only for what passes for business.

Dr. Godman: This is an important amendment. My constitituents who worked for Clydeside and Western are anxious to ensure that their interests, privileges and so on are respected in the same way as those of the employees at Clark Kincaid in the deal which was signed by British Shipbuilders and its buyers. My busmen constituents want the same sort of fairness shown to them as was shown by the management buy-out just down the road in East Hamilton street in Greenock when Clark Kincaid was taken over by Mr. Bill Scott and his colleagues. The negotiations were fair. I spoke to senior shop stewards, councillor Robert Jackson and John Quigley at Clark Kincaid, and they thought that they had negotiated a reasonable deal for the work force.
Employees of Clydeside and Western, whom I have met recently, are seeking the provision that is contained in the amendment. It states that there should be
no diminution of any concession, benefit or privilege enjoyed by—
(a) any person who is or has been employed by the Group.
That is what they seek if and when negotiations for the purchase of their particular bus company take place. They would prefer to follow that route than the tortuous path that seems to have been followed by the employees at Ferguson in Port Glasgow vis-a-vis the would-be


take-over by the Perth-based Ailsa company of that yard. In that case the would-be buyer is arguing for a diminution of benefits, pensions and so on.
I hope that the interests of the Clydeside and Western employees, who provide a fine transport service for the people of Inverclyde, will be honoured, as were those of my constituents employed at Clark Kincaid by those who acquired that company.

Mr. McAllion: These concessions, benefits and privileges are essentially free travel for employees and either free or cut price travel for their families. In Committee the Minister said:
These concessions are not a right, but a privilege.
The use of the word "privilege" presaged the Minister's intention not to stand up on behalf of the employees who insist that these privileges be maintained after privatisation. He showed that he was prepared to accept that the concessions would be conceded, at least in part, by the STG and through it by the Government in the negotiations with the new private operators.
It is important to recognise that although each subsidiary, for example Strathtay, arranges the free concessions for its employees, the concessions apply to the whole of the STG. Therefore, it is possible for an employee of Strathtay to have a cheap busman's holiday with his family which could take him from Dundee to Perth on a Strathtay coach, on a Citylink coach to Gourock, on a CalMac ferry to the Western Isles and as far as Stornoway without any charge to him and only a part charge to his family. We are dealing with substantial concessions and rights which workers enjoy by custom and practice.
When the Minister was asked what the value of the concessions was, he admitted that they had not been costed and said that he would ask the STG for an estimate. Can he tell us the cost of these concessions?
In Committee the Minister said that the STG had the power
to enter into arrangements regarding the continuation of any concession
with the new owners of the privatised subsidiaries. Failing agreement in the negotiations, the STG would have the power to make compensation payments for the loss of any such concession. That reveals that the Minister expects the negotiations to fail. In the expectation of that failure he has built into the Bill the provision that the STG can make some sort of pecuniary compensation to those who lose out as a result of privatisation. What sort of financial compensation will be available for people who lose these concessions as a result of privatisation?
The Minister went on to say:
I wish to make it clear … that the provision of any concessions for employees and their families of the privatised companies will be a matter for those companies.
In other words, he conceded that the Government would not impose on the new privatised companies the condition that they pick up the concessions, but would leave it to the companies. He said that the Government
would expect them to provide concessions for their employees and their families.
He may expect them to do that, but what steps is he taking to make them do so? That is the key question that he must answer tonight. So far he has not said how he can do that.
The Minister said that the Government would make provision in the disposal programme for bidders for any SBG subsidiary to be asked
what their intentions are with respect to travel concessions.
If Stagecoach said that there would be no concession scheme for its employees, would that statement veto the bid or would the Minister accept the bid because of its other merits? Would he allow a bid to be successful although no concessionary arrangements were made?
The Minister pointed to the National Bus Company experience and said:
in some cases arrangements regarding concessions were included in sale agreements.
For the life of me, that seems to be what amendment No. 18 is suggesting. If the Government were prepared in the sale of NBC subsidiaries to concede that the continuation of these concessions should be part of the sale agreement, the Minister will have to put up a convincing argument why that cannot be included in the sale of the SBG subsidiaries.
In Committee the Minister said that he would give
special consideration to the future arrangements for concessionary travel for retired employees of the bus companies
and that he would
anticipate that it will be possible to make suitable arrangements within the disposal programme, though necessarily covering the full extent of existing concessions.
The Minister seems to be prepared to accept the precedent set by the National Bus Company privatisation and to include in the sale agreements the condition that retired employees should continue to enjoy concessions. But he also seems to be arguing that he would accept watered-down concessions by the private companies. He must say clearly whether that is the case.
The Minister also said in Committee:
It remains to be decided whether STG employees other than CalMac employees at the date of transfer would remain eligible for CalMac concessions.
Has the Minister decided whether any of the employees in the privatised subsidiaries will continue to enjoy the concessions which allow them free travel on CalMac ferries? The same applies to CalMac employees and retired employees. Will they be able to use the privatised buses, as they use the STG buses, free of charge?
The Minister ended in Committee by saying:
It may not be possible to make arrangements for the full extent of existing concessions to continue, because, except for CalMac, the arrangements will depend on what is made available by the new companies."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee; 14 February 1989, c. 384–85.]
That is an unsatisfactory way to proceed. These valuable concessions have been enjoyed by custom and practice in the transport industry sinced the second world war. The Minister seems to be washing his hands of responsibility for ensuring that the concessions continue and is leaving the matter entirely to the private operators. He will speak to them and try to reach agreement on including concessions in the new private operations, but he will do nothing to make the private companies accept those concessions. In the end, it seems that he is prepared to back down.
I ask the Minister to remember what he said in Committee and to give now the answers that he did not give then.

9 pm

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Opposition Members have made several important points. I am not yet in a position to give a figure on the cost of concessions. It is probably difficult to calculate. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) mentioned compensation. Whether it will be paid in respect of the loss of concessions will be decided once the extent of the continuing concessions is known. Such compensation will not necessarily be provided, although the Bill would enable payments to be made if appropriate.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) asked whether the lack of a concessionary scheme would veto a bid. It would not necessarily veto a bid, but it would be seriously taken into account in evaluating a bid.

Mr. Wilson: If the would-be private buyers of those companies buy their copies of Hansard tomorrow and see that the Government will take such matters into account and that it might lead to a veto, instead of telling the Government what they plan to do when making the bid might they not simply do it a fortnight later?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We shall give special consideration to the future arrangements for concessionary travel for retired STG employees. I would expect those matters to be covered fully in the disposal programme and, if necessary, for provision to be made in sale agreements. However, the arrangements may not provide for the full extent of existing provisions covering the STG network.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East used the National Bus Company as a precedent. I understand that in that privatisation not all the existing concessions were continued, but that the sale agreements provided for some concessions for retired employees.
The STG grants its employees and retired employees travel concessions on STG services for themselves and members of their families. Employees enjoy free travel on STG and Caledonian MacBrayne services within Scotland. Half-fare concessions are given to employees' spouses and children under 16. Employees also receive half-fare concessions on services such as Citylink cross-border services that are not covered by full-fare concessions. Retired employees and their spouses, widows or widowers are entitled to free travel.
As the hon. Member for Dundee, East pointed out, I said that the concessions are not a right but a privilege. But I make it clear to the House that they are of long standing and that it is customary to provide such concessions in the transport industry. The provision of concessions for employees and their families by the privatised companies will be a matter for those companies, but we would expect them to provide concessions. When they submit bids, prospective purchasers will be asked what their intentions are with respect to travel concessions, and that information will be taken into account when assessing bids.

Dr. Godman: Concessions, benefits and privileges enjoyed by employees would come under the rubric of terms and conditions of employment. If that is the case, will employees be allowed—as with the privatisation of British shipbuilding yards—the right to exercise a veto by way of secret ballot over any bid other than that of a preferred bidder? That is what happened at Kvaerner, and

it has happened at all the other British shipbuilding yard privatisations for the past few years. It happened most recently at Clark Kincaid—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I do not see how that can arise under this amendment.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The position is clearly different when there are a number of different subsidiaries. It would not be appropriate to make it a condition of sale that all existing concessions should continue. I expect that privatised companies at least will wish to offer some concessions to their own employees for travel on their own services. If privatised companies are willing to go further and to make reciprocal arrangements for concessions on their services for employees of other bus companies, that will be for them to arrange.
We shall consider with the STG what provisions, if any, should be made in sale agreements with regard to concessions for employees and their families, but I do not anticipate that any such provision will go as far as the amendment would require. To do that would be very complicated and would impose conditions on sale that might inhibit bids, including bids from management-employee buy-out teams.

Dr. Godman: My question relates to concessions and privileges. Will negotiations for acquisition follow a similar pattern to that established by the present Government for the sale of British shipyards?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: As I have told the hon. Gentleman, the circumstances are entirely different.

Dr. Godman: No, they are not.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is different when there is a single employer. It is likely, indeed inevitable, in this instance that a series of different companies will emerge. I should also point out that travel concessions do not form part of STG contracts of employment, although it will be open to any company to offer concessionary schemes within the area in which employees and pensioners live. Companies will be at liberty to work out reciprocal arrangements if they wish.

Mr. Wilson: I would not say that the Minister had explained the position clearly; I would say that he had explained it with his usual clarity. Certainly my question went unanswered. I remember that in Committee someone suggested that our proceedings should be called "Carry On Buses", but in the Minister's case they should be called "Carry On Reading", because no matter what he is asked he simply goes on with his brief without pausing to attempt an answer if the question is at all tricky.
I asked the $64,000 question: what if the bidders for the subsidiary companies do not declare at the time that they are going to abandon employees' rights, but subsequently do so? What sanction does the Minister retain in the Bill? If he does not retain a sanction, will he tell us honestly that there is nothing in the Bill to safeguard the concessionary travel rights of the present Scottish Bus Group employees? That is the truth of the matter.
I find it despicable that rights which, although the Minister may consider them a privilege, are clearly understood to be built into the remuneration of transport workers are to be put up for auction along with everything else.

Amendment negatived.

Order for Third Reading read.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have had a full and interesting series of debates today. In those debates and in Committee we have discussed thoroughly the issues raised by the Bill and have clarified many points.
At the start of the Committee stage the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said:
we want to make the best of the Bill, particularly by encouraging the idea of worker-management buy-outs."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 17 January 1989; c. 10]
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman expressed himself in such terms at an early stage, as it is the Government's objective also to ensure that the Bill is entirely satisfactory and to encourage management-employee buy-outs.
The Bill falls into two main parts. The first deals with the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group, and the second with the transfer of Caledonian MacBrayne to the ownership of the Secretary of State.
In privatising the Scottish Bus Group we have a number of important objectives. First, we want to increase the amount of competition in the bus industry. Competition increases efficiency and choice: the busy bus routes which have attracted extra services since deregulation, holding the fares down and increasing choice, are evidence of its benefits. Secondly, we want to widen share ownership and encourage management and employees to participate in the ownership of the firms in which they work. That objective has received widespread support. Thirdly, we want to replace a large dominant provider of bus services, which is centrally controlled, with locally based Scottish companies in touch with their local markets. I am sure that the Opposition subscribe to those objectives.
The second part of the Bill transfers the ownership of Caledonian MacBrayne to the Secretary of State. That is an essential consequence of the dissolution of the Scottish Transport Group. Our objective in doing so is to ensure the continuance of lifeline services to the islands off the west coast of Scotland, given the unprofitable nature of the majority of those services. Our first priority with CalMac is always to guarantee the lifeline services which it provides to the islands. The Government's commitment to the services is plain. Since 1979 we have approved £22 million for new vessels and £6 million for new piers. In a fortnight's time a further new vessel will be launched at Port Glasgow, making it the fourth major new vessel to be launched in the past five years. Roll-on roll-off facilities are now available across a great part of the network. The transfer of CalMac to the Secretary of State will allow that commitment to the services to continue. The Secretary of State will be appointing a new board for the company, and I have given a clear undertaking that, although we want a wide spread of experience of commercial and shipping matters on the board, we would look for such persons among those who are resident in the islands.
We are anxious to ensure that CalMac is responsive to its customers. As part of this process the Secretary of State has said that he would like the new board to look at the possibility of moving the headquarters of CalMac nearer

to the centre of the area which it serves. He has suggested that Oban would prove a suitable place for this purpose. I am aware from the substantial discussion in Committee and in the House that this suggestion is strongly opposed, particularly by Members whose constituencies would be affected by the transfer of jobs. However, as I have made clear, I am sure that when considering the best arrangements for its headquarters, the new board of CalMac will take careful account of the views of management and employees and will consult them fully before deciding what solution is best in terms of CalMac's overall responsibilities to provide shipping services to the Western Isles.
The Bill offers the prospect of exciting new developments in the organisation of a major part of Scotland's public transport system. It offers the prospect of new bus companies which are locally based and locally responsive. It offers the prospect of CalMac, with its own board, taking a fresh look at how it can continue to serve the islands in a more cost effective way.
I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr.Wilson: I thank my colleagues for their support. Without exception, the Opposition Members who served on the Committee have also been present today. The contrast with the turnout and contributions from the Conservative Benches is even more striking than usual. What we are faced with is government by decree, not by discussion or debate, and certainly not by amendment. At this stage in our proceedings the sum total of our achievement has been to turn one "may" into "shall". That is the only amendment that the Minister has accepted.
It is clearly understood that one result of the Bill will be that the STG will be done away with. Therefore, in the past few days I was surprised to read that two new members of the STG board have been appointed for two years. I should be grateful if the Minister could explain what they will do for two years. I hope, in particular, that the Minister will assure us that they are not being appointed now to be transferred to the board of CalMac when it is the successor company. As far as I can tell, reither individual has had any dealings with the operation of ferries. I find it extremely odd that, at this juncture, two new appointments to the board for two years have been announced by the Government.
The Bill is unnecessary, unasked for and unwanted. It is not the stuff from which great political excitement is made. For most people it is fairly mundane and for most hon. Members it is one of the less spectacular pieces of legislation that will be considered in the lifetime of this Parliament. But for the people who work for the Scottish Transport Group it is a major piece of legislation because it disturbs their lives, upsets their security and puts their jobs at risk. For those reasons it is important to those people even if it is not important to Conservative Members who have shown their disinterest by their conspicuous absence from the debate.
To an extent to which many people do not yet realise the Bill is also important to the travelling public, because the level of service will be affected. The incantations by the Minister are insufficient to persuade anyone that services will be affected in a beneficial way. I am reminded of the adolescent Maoists of the late 1960s, who went round with little red books chanting slogans. The equivalent chants


from the Minister are, "Competition increases efficiency and choice. We want to widen share ownership. These are exciting new developments." Those are empty slogans and bear no relationship to the consequences of deregulation or privatisation in England and Wales.
As the Minister rightly said at the start of our deliberations on the details of the Bill, I said that I wanted to make the best of it—especially in relation to the disposal of the individual companies in the Scottish Bus Group. I wanted to write into the Bill amendments that would make likely the success of buy-outs. I was not doctrinaire about the form of buy-outs because they are many and varied. As a decentralist, I believe that it is up to the people who work in the group to make their own arrangements and to compete if necessary to establish the best of these arrangements in their own interests and in the interests of the service that they provide. After that has been done my approach would be, "May the best scheme win."
On that issue and as the Minister is aware, I am puzzled and disappointed that he has precluded the possibility of competition in the advancement of buy-out options by a quite absurd adherence to his determination that there will be only one buy-out option eligible for Government support. Therefore, in a completely unjust way, other attempts at buy-outs from within the work force will be disqualified. They will not he allowed to get past first base or to develop to a stage at which they can be judged on their merits. That is the antithesis of competition and choice and all the other wonders that the Minister sought to attribute to the Bill.
It is a quite unnecessary and unreasonable element in the Bill that only one of these buy-out bids will have the opportunity even to be considered. There will be few prizes for guessing that the bids that will be disqualified will be those that have most participation by those who work on the shop floor of the bus industry. The Minister is on record as saying that the only bids that will attract support are management-employee bids. That is disappointing and I still hope that the Government will think again about it.
When I said that we sought to make the best of the Bill I meant that we wanted something in writing setting out the terms on which buy-outs would be encouraged and made to succeed. Not one word of the Bill makes it likely that buy-outs will succeed, whatever format they may take. The Minister has resisted every attempt to strengthen the Bill in support of buy-outs by the existing employees of the bus companies. At the end of the day all that we are left with is his assurance of good will towards them. He tells us that that is what the Government want. We will not have any idea for some months about whether that will become reality, but we know that the private sector does not see it that way. It is not convinced that the Minister will support buy-outs or that this is a matter of transferring the bus holdings to the two buy-outs consisting of management and workers. The private sector knows very well that it is in at least as good a position to succeed with its bids. That is why the private sector—in some cases the exploitive and asset-stripping private sector—will be queuing at St. Andrew's house to put in its bids as well.
I find it extraordinary that at this particular juncture the Scottish Development Agency should have chosen to invest £500,000 in Stagecoach for the specific purpose of strengthening its ability to compete against the buy-out bids to which the Government pay lip service. Until now there has been nothing to strengthen the likelihood of buy-outs succeeding, and everyone who works within

Scottish Bus Group, everyone who has followed the Committee's deliberations, and everyone who is interested in a reasonable solution being found to the ownership of bus services in Scotland will watch carefully in the months ahead to see whether the Government's words are turned into action. If they are not, that will be another stick with which to beat the Tories in Scotland.
I am interested, as, I am sure, is the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), in what happens to the attempted buy-out in the Western and Clydeside areas which are to be merged into one big company. Three Tory Members represent the Western area, and if the buy-out bid is treated with contempt and one of the big private operators is favoured in the disposal, I have no doubt that that will inflict a political cost on the Government in that part of Scotland.
Another matter that I have mentioned today and that dominated our debate in Committee is the attempt in the Bill to protect the assets and the interests of the public purse. I am appalled that the Bill contains nothing to protect the interests of the public purse. I place on record again the experience of Hampshire Bus as an illustration of what can and will happen unless protective steps are taken. Hampshire Bus was sold to Stagecoach for £2 million. Two bus stations were then sold, leaving the travelling public in Southampton with no bus stations. One of those bus stations was sold relatively uncontroversially for an undisclosed price, the other was sold for £4·1 million. Part of the bus operation of Hampshire Bus was then sold by Stagecoach for a further f 1 million producing for Stagecoach a net profit of at least £3·1 million on those transactions, and left it still owning the remaining half of the operation. It beats me how anyone in any corner of the House can claim that the public purse did anything other than extremely badly, as the price of disposal clearly did not reflect the value of the asset being sold. It did not take account of the potential profit through the realisation of the assets if they were transferred from the purpose for which they were sold to another purpose—development.
As I pointed out, the public purse in another form—the ratepayers of Southampton—was left to pick up the tab to build a new bus station at a cost of £138,000. Thal is an illustration of the relative values that can be placed on the same piece of property if the use is different. It costs £138,000 to build a bus station in Southampton, vet another bus station can be sold for £4·1 million. Which value will be reflected in the calculations on which the assets of the Scottish Bus Group are sold? Will it be the value of the bus station or the development value? All the Minister can say is that experts are advising on the matter. But there was expert advice in Southampton and in every other part of England and Wales where similar rip-offs have occurred.
I make it clear that my criticism is not of Stagecoach. If Stagecoach can make £2·1 million, then another ·1 million and then another few hundred thousand pounds by selling the assets that it brought cheaply, that is business, from the point of view of Stagecoach. But I am interested to know who advised the Government to sell for £2 million and whether similar people are advising them on this sale. The Minister must tell us that.
In Scotland, we are dealing with capital property assets. at least as valuable as—if not more valuable than—those in Southampton and other parts of England where similar asset stripping has occurred. I am advised that the Buchanan street bus station in Glasgow has a capital value


for development purposes of at least £4 million and the St. Andrews square bus station in Edinburgh has a development value of at least £15 million. Are they to be sold at their asset value as bus stations or for their development value?
If the buyers of these companies say that the want to use the properties as bus stations and then—as happened in Southampton—a fortnight later sell them at their development value, will there be any redress for the public interest and the public purse? From what we have heard so far from the Minister tonight, the answer appears to be that there will be no protection and the Bill will be an asset-stripper's charter. If the Minister has any other thoughts on that he should tell us now. He must recognise that his pathetic answer that professional advice is being taken is wholly inadequate.
I turn briefly to the major part of the Bill which deals with Caledonian MacBrayne. I shall not go over all the arguments again, but when the Minister talks about the new board deciding this and that, he merely highlights and confirms what we have said, which is that the composition of the new board is all-important. I should like an answer to the question that I asked at the outset—is there any connection between the new members of the Scottish Transport Group board and the proposed new board of Caledonian MacBrayne? If the Minister can bring himself to do so, let him speak the words and say that posts on the Caledonian MacBrayne board will not be politically motivated appointments of out-of-work Tories, but will genuinely reflect the interests and values of the communities that Caledonian MacBrayne uniquely serves.
The Bill's main feature is unnecessary: nobody demonstrated in the streets of Scotland for a Scottish transport Bill to privatise the bus services. By and large, the Scottish people are reasonably satisfied with the services provided by the Scottish Bus Group. As every survey since deregulation has shown, people are in the main less satisfied with bus services now than they were pre-deregulation. I know that that will be denied by those who choose to believe in the myth that competition increases efficiency and choice.
In many parts of Scotland the Bill could result not in greater competition and choice, but in more monopoly and lack of choice. However, I do not think the Government are concerned about that, because they are really interested in a doctrinaire determination to hand public assets to the private sector without regard to the interests of the public purse, the employees of the public sector or the public who are served by it.

Sir Hector Monro: I warmly congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on bringing the Bill to the House, and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) on taking it through Committee so effectively and efficiently. I should add that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) also played a constructive part in getting the Bill through Committee. The passage of the Bill shows that with good will from hon. Members on both sides it is possible to

complete a Committee stage without having to impose a timetable, so that all parts of the Bill receive adequate scrutiny, which is what should happen.
I am a great believer in voluntarily timetabling legislation beforehand to avoid the guillotine, which results in the latter parts of Bills never receiving proper discussion. I felt that the Bill proceeded through Committee properly and there was plenty of time for all of it to receive proper discussion.
The principal objective of the Bill is to achieve better bus services in Scotland and we shall achieve that. I know that the Opposition dislike any form of change, but I think that the Bill brings a change for the better. We shall have better bus services and more buses of varying sizes, including the minibus services that are so effective. There will be just as much, if not more, employment, with bus services being run effectively for the public and for school children in rural constituencies.
The bus operators and staff of Western in south-west Scotland are looking forward to the opportunity to participate in management buy-outs. That is exactly what my right hon. and learned Friend hopes will happen. I take the point that in buy-outs, of whatever kind, great value is placed on the capital assets and that vast profits are sometimes made, due to the arrangements for the original sale. I hope, however, that lessons have been learnt from other disposals. I agree with the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North that the capital value of the bus stations in Edinburgh and Glasgow is enormous. At a more humble level, so, too, is the capital value of garages in Dumfries and elsewhere in Scotland.
The bus services that are about to be deregulated enjoy the use of valuable capital assets. I am sure that those who advise my right hon. and learned Friend about the sale of capital assets will bear their value in mind. City centre developments are very big business. It would be unacceptable if bus companies sold their capital assets for redevelopment as shopping centres or office accommodation. Their capital value ought to be borne in mind when they are sold.
I am disappointed that the Opposition have not welcomed entrepreneurs such as Stagecoach which has been highly successful. The services that it has provided in both the south and the north of England and in Scotland demonstrate that it is able to provide excellent services at reasonable fares. We are after good bus services and cheap fares.
Despite the Opposition's arguments, the Bill provides that the pensions of those who work for the Scottish Transport Group will be protected. The employees have nothing to fear from the Bill.
The Government's attitude towards CalMac and the islands is right. The islands need better services. Most Scottish Members have visited the islands, and we want to be able to visit them in future from time to time. The ferry services leave much to be desired, especially in their frequency. Those who wish to visit Rhum because they are interested in nature conservancy—the service also serves Eigg and Canna as well—find that it is difficult to make the round trip during the tourist season. They have insufficient time on the island if they want to return to Mallaig the same day, or even the next day. The better the services that we can provide for the islands, the better the opportunity that we shall have to develop the tourist industry.
All in all, I certainly welcome the Bill. As I have said before, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the way in which he has taken it through this House, and I wish it well in another place.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I shall be brief because I know that many of hon. Friends wish to speak, but it would be uncivil of me if I did not thank the Minister for having acceped my amendment to delete "may" and "insert" shall". It is the only amendment that has been accepted. Indeed, in Committee I spent hours trying to persuade the Minister. Lo and behold, in my absence, without my having offered a word, he accepted it. That must say something about the power of my advocacy. Perhaps I had better not set out to seek my living in the law.
I hope that when the Bill goes to another place the Minister will reflect on some things we have argued about—the need to protect property rights; the need for consumer protection; and the right of workers to some say in the control of their own destiny, which, patently, the Bill, as it leaves this place, does not provide. I hope that the Amendment Paper in another place will not be flooded with amendments that might properly have been tabled for discussion here.
One of the difficulties that we have had with the Bill is that it is an enabling measure. There is little of substance in it very little detail by which we can judge how it is going to work. It seems to me that the absolute, prime points of inconsistency occur in clause 4, subsection (1) of which says:
Without prejudice to any powers conferred on them by or under any other enactment, the Group shall have power to do, in such manner as they think fit, any thing required in pursuance of the disposal programme."—
blanket power for the Scottish Transport Group to do as it likes. Then we look with some astonishment at clause 4(2):
The Group shall not exercise their powers under subsection (1) above in relation to any disposal required in pursuance of the disposal programme except with the consent of the Secretary of State"—
exactly the opposite. It is worth repeating what I quoted in Committee:
The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away".
This shows the difficulty we have, so far as the future is concerned, in trying to deal with this legislation.
We are very seriously concerned about the issue of property stripping. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) voiced our concerns very eloquently and in some detail. The Minister gave a hint that he might seriously think again. He said that there was an option available to the Government that would have to be considered. The option is to have in the contract a clause to the effect that if money were made as a result of the sale of property for development—for speculative purposes—a proportion of it would accrue to the Secretary of State. That is not entirely satisfactory. It would be much better if any development moneys made in that way were to go to the people who work in the industry. If the Minister is looking at options, he should consider making a proportion of any speculative gain available, in the form of a bonus payment, to those who have worked in the industry all their lives. That would not satisfy us entirely, but it would at least be a move in the right direction and

would be a means of giving some credence to the people who built up these companies and created the possibility of their becoming viable concerns.
No Opposition Member likes the idea of privatisation. We do not think that the Bill will succeed in its aims and intentions. We think that the service will suffer as a result. But I certainly hope that the employee buy-outs—the different employee participation schemes—will succeed, and I hope that they will be widespread. That would be some saving grace. I would certainly give those a fair wind. A lot rests on them—the interests of the employees, and the interests of the consumers—and I hope that the Minister will look very seriously before the Bill proceeds further at the very strong points that we have made and that he will accept more than one amendment.

Dr.Godman: It seems from part I that employee buy-outs will get short shrift, and that we will have a choice between a management buy-out and a company which has been encouraged to buy out a bus company. In other spheres of privatisation, employees of public utilities or state-owned organisations have been given an opportunity to negotiate with the potential buyer. The Norwegian firm, Kvaerner, was encouraged to negotiate with the work force at Govan before it acquired that yard. The Government encouraged it to negotiate. The work force decided democratically to accept the Norwegian bid, and it went ahead.
With the sale of Clark Kincaid by British Shipbuilders at East Hamilton street, Greenock, the work force, following negotiations with the would-be purchaser—Mr. Bill Scott—voted overwhelmingly to accept the terms and conditions of employment offered by the new owner. I am simply asking that a similar pattern of negotiation be adopted in part I. Following negotiations, which were led on the employees' side by Councillor Robert Jackson and John Quigley, the work force at Clark Kincaid accepted, with few dissentients, the deal that they negotiated with the new owners.
At the moment, there are negotiations involving the privatisation of Fergusons at Port Glasgow. The would-be purchaser is Ailsa-Perth of Troon. When put to the work force, the initial offer was overwhelmingly rejected in a most democratic way—by a secret ballot which conformed in every way to the Government's legislative provisions. Almost 400 men and women voted on the initial offer, and only five voted to accept it. The would-be buyer has been told by British Shipbuilders to make a fresh offer which presumably must include an improved package of terms and conditions of employment.
Before bus companies such as that in my constituency are sold, employees should be consulted. Employees should be treated as employees of British Shipbuilders in Scotland and south of the border have been treated.
I sincerely hope that the new board of Caledonian MacBrayne will place orders with Scottish shipyards. I am pleased to see the Secretary of State in his place. I said earlier that a CalMac ferry is to be launched from the Ferguson yard in Port Glasgow in about two weeks' time by a member of the right hoe. and learned Gentleman's family. I hope to be at the launch and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be there, too. I have no doubt that there will be employees at the yard who are anxious to say a thing or two to him—in a most courteous way


—about the sale of CalMac. They are a very courteous lot on the lower Clyde, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows.
I look forward to the day when the Secretary of State orders and launches a series of ships built for Caledonian MacBrayne by the work force in Port Glasgow and the equally skilled work force in Aberdeen.

Mr. Tony Worthington: The theme behind the Bill was uttered by the Minister earlier. It is the belief that competition, which is what the Bill is said to be about, leads to efficiency. That is sometimes true. Opposition Members recognise that there are occasions when competition leads to efficiency. However, it does not inevitably do so. This weekend, Mr. Frank Bruno and Mr. Mike Tyson will be joined in competition but it will certainly not lead to efficiency. It will lead to one or the other being in a comatose state. In fact, some Conservative Members seem to be previewing the Tyson-Bruno fight.
As I said in Committee, the weakness of the Government's argument is that in order to stimulate competition they bring into play actors whose sole aim is to eliminate competition and to ensure a monopoly for themselves. By and large, that is what has occurred. The consequence of bus deregulation is that there is less competition this year than last year and there will be less competition next year than this year.
The method by which those who are involved in the alleged competition seek to achieve profits is by eliminating competition. There may be economy or efficiency for a while, but the aim is to eliminate competition, particularly in large parts of Scotland where the traffic on the routes is not such as to be able to sustain competition and where there is enough business only for one supplier. It would be far better for that supplier to be a public provider than a private one.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: rose—

Mr.Worthington: My words have reached Billericay.

Mrs. Gorman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although competition might not breed efficiency, monopoly, particularly state monopoly, almost inevitably breeds inefficiency?

Mr. Worthington: I am delighted to hear the assurance from the hon. Lady that competition does not automatically lead to efficiency. Those wise words have been signally absent from the Minister's contribution. It is something we have to take into account.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and other hon. Members have pointed to the contribution that has been made by minibuses since deregulation. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dumfries has acquired a minibus only in the past couple of years. Under the regionally provided services in Strathclyde, all the innovations that have been attributed to deregulation have been present for a number of years. I cannot think of any innovation that has occurred within the region since deregulation.
Competition is often followed by a neglect of those things that are crucial to the public provision of transport,

such as safety. We should have perhaps spent more time on the consequences of deregulation in terms of the standard of buses, which has visibly declined. There is no longer the same commitment to a modern fleet and one wonders what the breakdown rates are. Therefore, as I have said, competition does not inevitably lead to efficiency.
What has been missing from the Government's perception is that transport is not simply a means of travelling from A to B. Transport is a means by which communities are linked, families are linked and friendships are allowed to occur. That consideration has been missing and the Government have shown collectively over the past few years a great dishonesty about transport. They have said that it is always open to regional councils to provide transport where it is socially necessary.
There are two problems about that. The Government say that it is up to the regional council to provide the subsidy but the Government also say that regional councils are spending too much on all their services, including transport. The Minister should acknowledge that it is the view of the Scottish Office that far too much money is spent by regional authorities on the maintenance of concessionary fares. It would be honest of the Government if the Minister said that it is their intention and hope that regional councils will lessen their commitment to concessionary fares. We hope for such honesty. The Government have been saying dishonestly that regional councils should support socially necessary fares. In recent years, the Government have introduced the poll tax and in doing so they have taken control of 80 per cent. of local government expenditure. That will make it increasingly more difficult for regional councils to sustain socially necessary services.
I hope that, although so many powers will be given to the Secretary of State by this enabling legislation, a means will be found by which we can keep an eye on what happens. I do not share the Minister's optimism that employee-management buy-outs will figure commonly. I do not share the Minister's optimism that locally based companies will be formed and will survive. What will occur over the next 10 years is a process whereby private monopoly establishes an inefficient stranglehold on route after route in Scotland.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: First, I must apologise for not being here earlier. I was at a funeral in my constituency. I understand that earlier the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) said that I might be in favour of moving the headquarters of CalMac from Gourock to Stornoway. As I made clear in Committee, I would not be in favour of such a move if it led to the removal of jobs and to upheaval of the community in Gourock, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham). I want to put that on record.
I realise that time is marching on, but I want to pick up one point from the Minister's remarks. He described the Government as being absolutely committed to the lifeline services to the islands. I recall in Committee the Minister extolling the proud and historic name of Caledonian MacBrayne. I asked then why, in that case, it was ever in the Government's mind to change the historic name to that of Sealink or P and 0. There is no doubt that that was the Government's intention earlier this year. They


intended to privatise Caledonian MacBrayne. Opposition Members pointed out something that the Government had not yet realised—that to privatise Caledonian MacBrayne would be to lose vast sums of investment and subsidies coming from the EEC. When the Opposition pointed that out, the Government had to go back and look again at their plans. Although they had been trying for some months to find a way round the obstacle of most of the money coming from the EEC, they could not do so. That is why Caledonian MacBrayne has not been privatised under the Bill. It is not because of the Government's commitment to those lifeline services but simply because they could not find a way around the problem of the potential loss of money from the EEC.
The great danger presented by the Bill is that it still holds the potential for further—creeping—privatisation of Caledonian MacBrayne services. We fear that, should the EEC become less generous to the lifeline services to the islands, the Government will take that as a cue to proceed with their preferred option of privatisation. Any such move would be fiercely resisted, not just by myself but by local councils and communities throughout the highlands and islands which rely on those ferry services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said that there had been no demonstrations in the streets demanding a Scottish transport Bill, and indeed there were not. However, there were demonstrations in the islands against any potential privatisations and there would be again if the threat of the privatisation of Caledonian MacBrayne recurred. The Minister should take heed of that and abandon now any intention of reintroducing the privatisation of the ferry services.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I shall comment briefly on some of the comments made by Opposition Members. First, however, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his masterly conduct of the Bill.
The Opposition have said that the present system of nationalised bus routes is a source of community spirit and a method of sustaining friendship. A variety of other phrases were also used. If there is one thing of which we are certain in the rural communities of Scotland, it is that the bus routes as organised by the regional authorities under their present structure do the opposite.
It has been interesting that the Opposition have consistently had to shift their ground because they could not accommodate the desires of those who work in organisations such as Strathtay. Those people have been actively pursuing a policy of attempting to take over and run the organisations themselves to the extent that they have been shedding their wages and putting them into an account in order to bid for and take over the services which they are anxious to see serving people and which at present they recognise are not serving people. What could be a better litmus test of public feeling than that?
Opposition Members have had to retreat from what they would like to call the "workers'" interest to the consumers' interest. Those who want to take over the buses and who presently drive the buses or run the service are interested in the passengers. I assume that in Labour terms passengers are consumers, but I call them passengers because I do not know anybody who consumes buses. It is important that the people who work on the buses, who run the buses and who know the people who travel on them

want to take over the buses in private organisations for the benefit of those who travel on them. That seems an argument on which the Opposition have been completely defeated. Now that the people of Scotland are to be able to take over their own buses, the Opposition's argument is thoroughly defeated.

Mr. Wilson: Before the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) works himself up into a too satanic and demonic condition, in view of his certainty about the wishes of the people who work in the bus industry in Scotland, would he advise the Government to conduct a ballot of workers within the Scottish Bus Group on whether they want to retain the status quo or opt for the Bill?
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at this day's sitting, the Transport (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Transport (Scotland) Bill

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: I am disappointed by the Bill and the Government's handling of it. Even the most arrogant and self-assured Government must surely concede that somewhere, sometime, something that the Opposition have said must be of some relevance to the Government's operations—but not this Government. They and they alone decide what they want and push through their measures. They have listened to nothing that Opposition Members have said, apart from on one tiny amendment. In so doing, the Government have rejected a series of amendments designed to protect consumers and transport users, ensure employee-management buy-outs with guaranteed rights for employees and passengers, create an integrated transport system, ensure that services are maintained, protect the needs of individuals and groups, including the handicapped and women, and protect people in remoter parts of Scotland. All the amendments have been swept to one side by the Government. Without exception, all those amendments, which were fair and desirable, were turned down. That is disappointing.
The Government have always used their English majority, whether in Committee or on the Floor of the House, to force legislation on Scotland. If we had any choice about it, the Scots would never accept it. Scotland has rejected the Government's measures. The Government have no mandate to put them forward. If this measure were discussed in a purely Scottish forum, it would be rejected.
The Government have shown a closed mind in promoting the legislation. They are lumping English legislation—matters which are designed purely for England—on to Scotland without any real thought. We have had yuppie education, yuppie health and now we are getting yuppie transport. [Interruption.] Some of the yuppies have just arrived. The Legislation was not designed with Scotland in mind.
I am glad to see some English Members present. They have not been present for any part of the debate, but they


have turned up at the last minute to vote. That proves the point that I am trying to make. The Government are using their English majority to force the legislation through. They have again refused to understand the needs of Scottish transport users. We expect no better from the Government. We have received various reassurances from the Minister. I hope that the future does not prove him wrong, but I suspect that it will prove him and the legislation to be misguided.

Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the Bill and the Third Reading debate, and I do so on a special day for me. This is my 60th birthday. I will long remember the Third Reading debate, having had the opportunity to serve on two Standing Committees at the same time and the challenges that that presents, particularly when one has moved amendments and wishes to speak in both Committees. It is quite challenging.
That is why I welcome this opportunity to say to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that, contrary to some of the views expressed by the Opposition, there is no question but that employees of Strathtay are keen to become shareholders in the company where they work. I have no doubt that they represent a changing view. It is one of the Government's successes that we have made ordinary working people realise the value of having shares in the company where they work. That has been made possible by the sort of legislation that the Government have been putting through. Employee-management buy-outs are popular, and even the trade unions have had to accept that.
In addition, the Bill provides the opportunity for the control and ownership of the SBG to be transferred to Scotland. I am optimistic that not only will management-employee buy-outs be successful, but that other Scottish companies in the bus and coach industry will have the opportunities to acquire parts of it.
All that means that Scotland can look forward to owning and running the buses that we have, knowing full well that the people working on them are probably shareholders and will have the interests of the passengers at heart. That is what this is all about.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I welcome the strong representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) on behalf of employees working for Strathtay.
I wish to answer the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who said that one point has not been answered. He asked what the position was of a company which says in its bid that it will operate a concessionary fares scheme, but fails to do so in practice. While there is no statutory sanction, there could well be a contractual obligation and commitment in the sale agreement. I shall certainly look into that point further.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir. H. Monro) spoke about better bus services and the Bill being a change for the better. He stressed the importance and value of bus stations, and we shall bear that in mind.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North asked whether Kenneth Ryden was involved in Southampton.
To the best of our knowledge, it was not, but we shall check up on that. He asked who the two new appointees were to the board. One is David Erdal who is chairman of Tullis Russell, the paper makers in Fife. He has introduced an employee share ownership plan to his company. It is the first in Scotland and his contribution to the board will be invaluable, especially on the issue of employee participation. The second appointee is Mr. Robert Temple, formerly finance director of Distillers.
It has been pointed out that only one amendment has been granted.

Mr. Wilson: Before the Minister moves on, we should have more information about those appointments. The first sounds reasonable, but the second is mysterious to say the least. One hopes that the connection between Distillers and bus operating is limited. Since the STG will probably disappear well within two years, why were those gentlemen appointed for two years? Will there be any follow-on into the membership of the CalMac board?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Names have not yet been considered, so I cannot say who will be appointed to the CalMac board. The former finance director of Distillers will have expert knowledge on what bids and mergers are about. That and his financial expertise will be useful.
A considerable number of commitments—

Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No. I have answered the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Wilson: Mr. Wilson rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have told the hon. Gentleman that names for the CalMac board have not yet been considered.
Commitments have been given to consult the Scottish Consumer Council and the Rural Forum. That has been arranged and there will be a meeting with them on 27 February. There have been comments about further meetings with the Scottish Trades Union Congress, and I have offered to meet Mr. Stevenson of the Transport and General Workers Union. I said that I would try to obtain information about the action taken by bus operators to implement the recommended bus specifications, and I reported to the Committee on the information that I had obtained. I made it clear that I had followed up with the Scottish Development Agency the need for management-employee buy-out teams to receive the same treatment as any other applicant for assistance from the SDA.
We gave an undertaking to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) to look for candidates for the CalMac board among residents of the islands, and we shall of course do that.
The Bill offers significant opportunities to those involved in the bus industry in Scotland. It will provide the opportunity for more competition. It will offer the opportunity for management-employee buy-outs, for management and employees to own the companies in which they work. It will offer the chance of greater local responsiveness. There will be a new board for CalMac and a fresh look at the company's operations against the background of our continuing commitment to the present quality of services to the islands.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 113.

Division No. 106]
[10.10 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Grist, Ian


Amess, David
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Amos, Alan
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Arbuthnot, James
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hanley, Jeremy


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Hannam, John


Ashby, David
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Atkins, Robert
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Harris, David


Batiste, Spencer
Hayes, Jerry


Bellingham, Henry
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bendall, Vivian
Hayward, Robert


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Benyon, W.
Heddle, John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Boswell, Tim
Hill, James


Bottomley, Peter
Hind, Kenneth


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Howard, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Bright, Graham
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Burns, Simon
Hunter, Andrew


Butcher, John
Irvine, Michael


Butler, Chris
Jack, Michael


Butterfill, John
Janman, Tim


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Carrington, Matthew
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Carttiss, Michael
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Cash, William
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Chapman, Sydney
Knowles, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Lang, Ian


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lawrence, Ivan


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lightbown, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Lord, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Mans, Keith


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Day, Stephen
Miller, Sir Hal


Devlin, Tim
Mills, Iain


Dorrell, Stephen
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mitchell, Sir David


Dover, Den
Monro, Sir Hector


Dunn, Bob
Moore, Rt Hon John


Evennett, David
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Morrison, Sir Charles


Fallon, Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Favell, Tony
Mudd, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Nelson, Anthony


Fishburn, John Dudley
Neubert, Michael


Fookes, Dame Janet
Nicholls, Patrick


Forman, Nigel
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Forth, Eric
Norris, Steve


Fox, Sir Marcus
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Franks, Cecil
Oppenheim, Phillip


Freeman, Roger
Page, Richard


Gale, Roger
Paice, James


Gill, Christopher
Patnick, Irvine


Glyn, Dr Alan
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gow, Ian
Powell, William (Corby)


Greenway, Harry (Eating N)
Price, Sir David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Raff an, Keith


Gregory, Conal
Rathbone, Tim




NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Haynes, Frank


Alton, David
Home Robertson, John


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hood, Jimmy


Beckett, Margaret
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Beith, A. J.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; Ft'dish)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Blunkett, David
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Boateng, Paul
Ingram, Adam


Bradley, Keith
Janner, Greville


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Kennedy, Charles


Buchan, Norman
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Buckley, George J.
Lamond, James


Caborn, Richard
Leadbitter, Ted


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lewis, Terry


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Loyden, Eddie


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
McAllion, John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McAvoy, Thomas


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
McCartney, Ian


Clay, Bob
Macdonald, Calum A.


Clelland, David
McFall, John


Cohen, Harry
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McKelvey, William


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
McNamara, Kevin


Cox, Tom
McTaggart, Bob


Crowther, Stan
McWilliam, John


Cummings, John
Madden, Max


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Marek, Dr John


Dewar, Donald
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dixon, Don
Martlew, Eric


Doran, Frank
Maxton, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Meale, Alan


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fearn, Ronald
Morgan, Rhodri


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mullin, Chris


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Murphy, Paul


Fisher, Mark
Patchett, Terry


Flynn, Paul
Pike, Peter L.


Foster, Derek
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Fyfe, Maria
Reid, Dr John


Galbraith, Sam
Robertson, George


Galloway, George
Short, Clare


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Skinner, Dennis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Spearing, Nigel


Gordon, Mildred
Steinberg, Gerry


Graham, Thomas
Strang, Gavin


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Wall, Pat

Redwood, John
Tracey, Richard


Renton, Tim
Tredinnick, David


Riddick, Graham
Trippier, David


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Walden, George


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waller, Gary


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Ward, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


Speller, Tony
Wheeler, John


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Widdecombe, Ann


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wiggin, Jerry


Stern, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wilshire. David


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Summerson, Hugo
Winterton, Nicholas


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Woltson, Mark


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. David Maclean and


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Mr. Tony Durant.

Wareing, Robert N.
Wray, Jimmy


Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Wigley, Dafydd
Tellers for the Noes:


Wilson, Brian
Mr. Ken Eastham and


Wise, Mrs Audrey
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.


Worthington, Tony

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time,and passed.

Orders of the Day — Blind Persons (Pelican Crossings)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise a matter that is serious and grave not just to my constituents and the people of Edinburgh and Scotland, but to blind, visually handicapped and disabled people the length and breadth of the country. It is the failure of the Department of Transport to approve a system that will enable blind people to have much better and freer mobility. That system has been available in Scotland for nine years, but for obstinate reasons that I shall enlarge upon later, the Minister and the Secretary of State for Transport have refused to endorse it in England and Wales.
The debate is about the attempt by blind people in Britain to persuade the Secretary of State for Transport and the Minister to provide safe pelican crossings for blind and disabled pedestrians. It reveals how the Department has dragged its feet on providing any system and how the Minister has saved millions of pounds at the expense of disabled people. It is about a catalogue of misinformation and untrue statements worthy of an Orwellian novel that have been deployed by the Minister to prevent blind people from obtaining a crossing because it is not the one that he wanted them to have.
Fifteen years ago investigations began into a "sweep-and-beep" pelican crossing that would solve the problem facing blind people trying to cross a busy road where the traffic is stopped in only one direction at any one time. Standard audible crossings that can be heard from both sides of a road can unwittingly lure a blind or partially sighted person out in front of a moving vehicle because he does not know which side the beep indicates is clear.
For 15 years the Department of Transport in England has been trying to find an audible crossing with a beep that can be heard from one side of the road only. Nine years ago a Scottish company invented a crossing with a tape that advised pedestrians when the traffic had been instructed to stop in one direction. That crossing was installed at the west end of one of the busiest streets in Britain—the main shopping street below Edinburgh castle on the main Glasgow road. It is just next to the headquarters of the Society for the Welfare and Teaching of the Blind in Scotland. I attended a meeting there this morning and Mr. Bob Mackie, the secretary, Mr. Jim McCafferty of the National League of the Blind and Disabled and Mr. Denis Wilson of the Royal National Institute for the Blind confirmed how much they as blind people, and everyone they represent, value the talking crossing. Provisional approval for this system was given by the Department of Transport in Scotland and some talking pelican crossings were installed. In February 1987 the Department of Transport in Scotland gave the crossing full approval and 14 of these crossings have been ordered by highways departments in Scotland.
In England there has been no such progress. The Minister's Department has sunk taxpayers' money into a different system, the "sweep-and-beep" or "cone-ofsound" system which he told the Royal National Institute for the Blind in June would be available now. This morning the RNIB again checked on delivery in London


and told me that the system is not yet available and nor is any date of expected delivery known. Organisations comprising and representing blind people have been pressing the Minister for two years to approve the talking crossing for use in England and Wales. All that is needed is for the Government to say that the testing and certification procedures of the Department of Transport in Scotland, which have proved satisfactory in Scotland, should be accepted in England and Wales.
The Secretary of State for Scotland wrote dismissing the three reservations that the Department of Transport had about the talking crossing. On 15 June 1988 he wrote to me saying:
we in Scotland do not share the reservations held by the Department of Transport and that is why we have authorised the use of speaking pelican equipment at several sites in Scotland.
The Minister put his three objections to the RNIB at a meeting on 16 June last year, but the deputation led by Mr. Tom Parker OBE countered the Minister's criticisms and reiterated the record of the talking crossing—a record of faultless and safe operation since 1980 of a system that was approved by the Department in Scotland. Following that meeting, the Minister spoke to the BBC and his account was so strange to the truth that the RNIB executive member who attended the meeting complained about it. After the meeting the Minister said:
Generally in the discussion people recognised that ours"—
that is the Department's
is probably a better way.
That is simply untrue. That was not the first time that the Minister resorted to these tactics. A catalogue of lies, mistakes, distorted information and contempt for the wishes of blind people emanating from the Minister and his Department—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not alleging that the Minister lied.

Mr. Griffiths: The Minister's Department.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful to the hon. Gentleman if he would spell out what he believes I or the Department may have said that is factually incorrect.

Mr. Griffiths: I am pleased to spell that out. I have a verbatim transcript of the BBC "In-touch" programme that followed our meeeting. In that programme the Minister said:
Generally in the discussion people recognised that ours is probably a better way.
There was no such recognition and if the Minister cares to check with the RNIB member who attended, Mr. Tom Parker, or with Mr. Jim McCafferty, an RNIB executive member who is also a member of the National League of the Blind and Disabled, he will see that his statement is thoroughly and completely repudiated. He made other misleading statements and I am prepared to quote them as well. I invite the Minister to reply to what I have just said.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I think that it might be more helpful if the hon. Gentleman finished what he believes to be his catalogue and then perhaps we could get on to the positive points. If the hon. Gentleman makes accusations he needs to substantiate them.

Mr. Griffiths: I have substantiated them and I will substantiate the next item. David Tarrant of Hampshire county council asked the Department of Transport for permission to install a talking crossing to help blind pedestrians in the county. He was told that the manufacturers had not sought the Department's approval for the product. That was a lie.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman makes constant accusations about lies. Who said what to whom and when? Was it oral or was it on paper? That would be easy to check. The hon. Gentleman should try to avoid using the word "lie", although he may want to use that word. He should put forward issues on which he thinks we have been wrong or misleading or point to things that we have said whlich turned out not to be true. It would be helpful if he would do that directly.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, may I say to him that he should not impute any dishonour to the Minister—or, of course, to any other hon. Member.

Mr. Griffiths: I note that, Mr. Speaker. I think that I have been factually accurate; and if the Minister cares to ask his civil servants to contact Mr. Tarrant on 0962841841, extension 7179, he can verify what I say.
I know that the Minister realises that I feel strongly about the issue. In the eight years before I came to the House I worked closely with disabled people, and I also know from my meetings over the past year with the RNIB—culminating in a meeting in Edinburgh this morning—how strongly that organisation feels about it, and how strongly blind people wish me to communicate to the Minister their dissatisfaction about how the matter has been handled.
The Minister's Department has sought throughout to discredit the talking crossing. On 31 January I received a letter from Mr. Hugo Sprinz, who lives in Hull. He wrote:
I understand that you too are interested in achieving safer crossings for pedestrians. I am registered as a blind person and have the same objective in mind.
Mr. Sprinz enclosed letters from the Department of Transport. Like many blind people, he had expressed support for the talking crossing. The Department, however, wrote back on 17 November:
Unfortunately none of these are available for use by the Local Highway Authorities at present.
The talking crossing is certainly available, and the Department knows that. It has simply refused to give the approval that is available in England and Wales.
The letter—on the Department's headed paper—went on to say:
there has also been a recent fatality at one of these talking crossings and the Scottish Office are reviewing their use of the equipment.
That is quite untrue, and I have the correspondence to back up what I have said. There have been no such fatalities—yet for the past three months organisations representing the blind have been subject to hundreds of inquiries about the safety of the talking crossing, all as a result of the misinformation emanating from the Minister's Department. To date, neither the manufacturers nor the inventor of the crossing—nor, more important, organisations representing the blind—have received an apology for the Department's actions.
The irony is that, while there has been no fatality in nine years related to the talking crossing, the Department has discovered a fault in the audible crossing which it approved and has switched 1,000 of them off. Those concerned with the welfare of the blind will know that the crossings are often a lifeline enabling visually handicapped people to get about. Yet, although the malfunction of his approved crossing was detected on 26 September, the Minister—who professes to be so concerned about the disabled—did not inform the RNIB about this vital problem during September, October, November, December or January.
The RNIB's head office in London told me this morning that it heard about the problem only when the press alerted it on 27 January. Eventually on 3 February a fax arrived from the Minister—after 1,000 crossings had been disconnected. He must explain to the House why he failed to ensure that the RNIB and other organisations representing disabled people were not alerted at the earliest opportunity to a dangerous problem and to the shutdown of 1,000 of his Department's crossings.
The Dcpdrtment has said that blind people do not want the talking crossing, but in December 1987 the European Blind Union unanimously endorsed it. Item 4 of the minutes dated 4 December 1987 records:
Pedestrian crossings should give an audible signal and, where there is a double crossing involved, it is better for such a signal to be the spoken voice".
In January 1988 the RNIB decided that talking crossings were its preferred choice for staggered crossings. On 25 May 1988 the institute wrote to me. The letter said:
May I on behalf of RNIB express our appreciation of your help and interest in what we believe to be a very important aspect of safety and mobility for blind people in the increasingly difficult traffic conditions which prevail".
The Bristol Royal Society for the Blind has endorsed the crossing; the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association wrote that this
excellent device … could contribute to the safe travel of blind people in England and Wales as well as in Scotland.
Notwithstanding all the support that I have already quoted, I know that the Minister will claim tonight that the RNIB has now fallen in with his "sweep-and-beep" system—but for one reason only. He has told the RNIB that any attempts to obtain Ministry support for the Scottish talking pelican crossing would be futile.
Lastly, I want to read from a letter that I received this morning:
I, along with a number of other Blind people am firmly of the belief that the Department is holding a pistol to the heads of blind People … in order that they accept their system.
That letter comes from a blind man who is an executive of the RNIB. His grave charge, substantiated by the facts, is one which the Minister must answer.

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) on expressing his deep concern for the problems of blind and disabled people and on raising the subject of the absence of pelican crossings.
In August last year, the Leicestershire county council approved the installation of a pelican crossing on New Parks way, New Parks estate, in my constituency. It said that it did not have the money to put in the crossing. I

warned the council that there would be a tragedy. Two weeks ago, there was a tragedy, and Kelly Allen, aged eight, was killed. Had there been a pelican crossing at the spot, as had been provided for, that child would be alive today.
The county council says that it has no money to put in the 19 or so crossings that have been approved on spots at which it acknowledges there is great danger. The Leicester Mercury is pressing the council as part of its campaign, and I have been pressing it for years. Now the council says that it has almost £600,000 in the gritting fund because of the benevolent winter. It says that it cannot use that money for crossings because it is in the revenue account, and crossings can be paid for only from the capital account.
The Government have the power to stop this monumental bureaucratic wickedness. They must insist on pelican crossings being installed where they are needed to save lives. They must not preside over the unnecessary deaths of blind, disabled or elderly people, or of children such as Kelly Allen.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) has again raised a point that he brought up in transport questions.
It is worth acknowledging that, even with the 10 per cent. of pelican crossings that might conceivably have suffered from the fault experienced in Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) should first have thought of asking for information about the one failure from the Scottish highway authorities, rather than throwing accusations at me. Even with the 10 per cent. we are talking about—1,000 out of up to 10,000—if most of those pelican crossings have gone in since 1983, the rate of installation has been accelerating. I hope that it will accelerate still more and that all highway authorities will make funds available. If we can help in general terms we shall, and although we do not make decisions for the 107 highway authorities in England—there are more in Scotland—we hope that they will reach high priority sites and make decisions to go on providing better safety for the vulnerable road users, the pedestrians. I know that the family concerned appreciate the concern shown by their Member of Parliament, the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South asked a question on 8 February about the number of injuries at bleeping pelican crossings in the past 12 months. I answered:
The total of 37 casualties should be compared with total pedestrian casualties in 1987 of 57,453. Of these 2,170 occurred on pelican crossings, and a further 2,470 occurred within 50 m of such a crossing. More than 7,000 pelican crossings were in operation during 1987."—[Official Report, 8 February 1989; Vol. 146, c. 705.]
People—not only the blind—may be concerned about malfunctions from listening to the debate. There are few recorded cases of pedestrian casualties at malfunctioning pelican crossings. In such cases, we do not know whether the accidents were caused by the defective crossings as we do not collect the causes of road accidents.
Over the past week or so the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South has asked a fair number of questions about these crossings. I am sorry that he has not chosen in this debate to give out much of the information that he has received. He has argued his case rather badly.
The hon. Gentleman made some accusations about the Department. A letter was written by one of the Department's regional offices that mistakenly referred to a fatality. Within four weeks the Department had written again to correct the mistake. Nobody who reads the report of the hon. Gentleman's speech will realise that. He said that people laboured under a misapprehension for three months.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman took up a fair amount of time, and time was also allowed to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West.

Mr. Griffiths: I gave way earlier to the Minister.

Mr. Bottomley: If the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his remark, I shall be happy to give way to him.

Mr Griffiths: The switchboard of the office for blind people that I visited this morning was jammed with calls from people who were inquiring about a fatality on a talking crossing. Why did the Minister not make sure that that statement was repudiated, not in four weeks, but in four days?

Mr. Bottomley: Partly because I was not aware of it. I should have done; I am one of those people who find it quite easy to apologise. The hon. Gentleman clearly does not. He has given the impression that the Department did not correct the mistake. I did. I am perfectly willing to apologise again on behalf of the Department and to take responsibility for it.
The hon. Gentleman needs to take responsibility for his own remarks. I intend to quote from the transcript of the radio interview that I gave after the meeting. I said:
It's not England versus Scotland, although obviously the talking Pelican got approved in Scotland, and I accept that the blind people were happy with it.
When the hon. Gentleman suggested that I said the reverse, he got it wrong. It was a mistake on his part. I said that I accepted that blind people were happy with it. I went on to say:
They'd be just as happy with the cone of noise, and the cone of noise has a number of advantages over using speech.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to an article in the Oxford Mail of Tuesday 31 January and to an article in Auto Express of 10 February. The article in the Oxford Mail is headed
Residents' fury over talking pelican crossing.
The article in Auto Express is headed
Cross words over talking pelican.
When I said in the radio interview that the cone of noise had a number of advantages over using speech and that
I think most people accept that—not everyone—but most people will accept that
I was not claiming unanimity. Then I said:
Certainly the physics are in its favour. What is the best way of providing guidance at divided crossings in Great Britain, and also what will help blind people abroad, and quite frankly if you've got a hundred and seven highway authorities in England, it's rather better to ask people to hang on for a few more months to get it right, when the best is not the enemy of the good, if you've got a better product that's going to be available, and more people will benefit.
I think that the hon. Gentleman referred to 14 installations of what we might refer to in shorthand as the Scottish crossing with the tape-recorded voice. I went on to say in that radio interview:

In a year or so's time people will be saying 'We were happy with the talking Pelican, but we think that what we're getting now is better, is going to be spread more widely, and provide more advantage, more safely'".
The interviewer asked:
And is that the time scale do you think, about a year for seeing some solution to the problem?
I said: "I hope so."
Some of that is inconsistent with what the hon. Gentleman said, but as presumably we are working from the same transcript I think that he will accept that as I have read out all my quoted remarks in that transcript I have provided more illumination than he did.
The Department has received recently a letter from the joint committee on mobility of blind and partially sighted people. It tries to act—and it succeeds—as a co-ordinating body. It believes that "bleep-and-sweep" audible signals at staggered dual carriageway pedestrian crossings are better. That is not disputed.
The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of issues with me. It might be thought from what he has said—probably inadvertently—that the Department's new sound unit is dangerous and has had to be withdrawn. It is worth saying that the fault was not in the new sound units; it was in the controllers that were made between 1977 and the early 1980s. A talking pelican is equally at risk if it is connected to one of the faulty controllers.
It might be suggested that the Department was slow to act when a pelican fault condition occurred. That is not so. One crossing out of 7,000 pelican crossings was faulty and it was dealt with quickly. The fault was found on 26 September and the Department was notified on 27 September. The Department wrote to the manufacturer on 30 September. On 19 October the manufacturer replied that the fault had been rectified. On 24 November the Department received a formal request to approve a design modification. It was approved on 21 December. On 3 January regional officers were asked to switch off audible units, and 1,000 out of the 7,000 were affected.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of notification. With hindsight, I think that it would have been better to say that 1,000 out of 7,000 were likely to be switched off. I think that my willingness to say so indicates that much of the rest of what the hon. Gentleman was saying was not up to scratch. The purpose of the press notice was to clarify the situation rather than actually to announce that action was being taken.
The hon. Gentleman referred to an incorrect letter sent on 17 November. It dealt with the question of the fatality. The writer of the letter had been misinformed, and he sent the letter in good faith. But that was corrected—on December 12, I think. It would have been more helpful if the hon. Gentleman had been able to say so in his speech—on the assumption that he knew about it.
The issue that we are facing is really whether, in the long term, it is better to have an audible voice than to have the cone of sound.
I have indicated to the House and to the hon. Gentleman that the cross words and the residents' fury over the talking pelican crossing suggest that there is a difficulty.
As to the disadvantages of the talking pelican, I am not saying that it should not have been approved in Scotland. Where there are separate jurisdictions it is obviously up to each to make its own decisions. That is one of the advantages, or one of the disadvantages if one were to look at it in a very rigorous way—but I prefer not to.
It annoys local residents—and I have given examples from the Oxford Mail and the Auto Express. It wastes green time while people listen to the message. Obviously, people could say that the three-and-half seconds that it may take for the tape-recorded message to be broadcast is wasted only to a stranger, and not to a local, who may set off as he hears the voice, let alone the bleep. If people do not wait to hear the message, that indicates that the spoken message is not necessary.
A spoken message also presupposes local knowledge, that a stranger coming to the pelican crossing and hearing a voice refer to traffic, to the town hall or away from the town hall, or to Oxford or away from Oxford, or to Edinburgh or away from Edinburgh, has some local knowledge already. Almost by definition, if someone is using a crossing for the first time he may not have that detailed local knowledge. Pedestrians, other than the blind, could be misled if they were not local.
The male and female voices units interlocked cannot talk together. This would limit its use in computer-controlled schemes, where full flexibility might be required. I would accept—if the hon. Gentleman had made this point—that the talking pelican crossing does not meet the pelican crossing regulations. However, the hon. Gentleman may regard that as a legalistic matter and beside the point.
I turn to the advantages of the Department's new sound unit if I may refer to it in that way. It overcomes all the problems that I have referred to. The new sound has been selected to be distinctive in relation to traffic noise. The level of sound is varied, depending on the level of the traffic noise. The distinctive nature of the sound allows it to be operated at a relatively low volume compared with the talking pelican, and it does not cause annoyance to local residents.
To put this in perspective, I should say that there are approximately 7,000 pelican crossings in England. About 6,000 are single crossings with bleeper sound units, and about 1,000 are staggered crossings. There are six trial sites with tactile knobs and six trial sites with the new sound units, and 25 trunk road sites will be equipped later this year with the new sound unit.
Let me turn again to the hon. Member's speech, which, on reflection, I hope he will regard as one that he should have modified before he made it or when he was making it. I hope that he feels—I was going to say "ashamed of it" but I will not put it that way—that he got it wrong.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Department as wasting, or not spending, millions of pounds. We did not hear much justification for that remark. He said that taxpayers' money had been sunk.
I regard expenditure on meeting the needs of people with disabilities as an investment. We are spending money on the provision of textured pavements, dropped kerbs, conventional sound units at single crossings, tactile devices and devices for the deaf at dual-carriageway roads, and the new sound units at dual carriageway roads.
All that we are doing for the disabled is an investment, not sinking taxpayers' money. The hon. Gentleman will probably want to withdraw or explain away what he said when he talks to groups which represent people with disabilities.
The hon. Gentleman talked of things which are strange to the truth, and of tactics, as though I, the Department, its disability unit, the Baldwin committee, which is a statutory committee that represents the needs of the disabled, or the joint committee on the mobility of blind or partially sighted people, are in some way to be disparaged because he, the hon. Gentleman, is the only one who has got it right.
I shall pass over the hon. Gentleman's reference to lies. He said that I said that blind people do not want the crossing, but the transcript says the exact opposite.
He said that I have told the RNIB this, that or the other. It is not so. It was not so—and the hon. Gentleman knew it. We want to get the cone-of-sound system into operation.
I, the hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West want more pelican crossings which are useful to the blind and partially sighted. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South would like to work with us, we would welcome that, and we will put behind us his intemperate and often inaccurate remarks.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Eleven o'clock.